V, 









* 



% c 







> V 






o v 
















1% 



* \ A 



^ 









= x° °, 



,0 o 




fc. <* 



















,** 









" The facts speak with a voice which nothing will 
ever silence against the system of the Roman Com- 
munion, as it now is. It is no pleasure to me, (God 
knows ! ) to dip my pen in gall, and rail at Antichristian 
corruptions, or the faults of any community ' that 
nameth the Name of Christ. 7 And, in these times of 
doubt and fear especially, every good man would rather 
labor to * build up' than to 'pull down.' But some- 
thing we have a right to say in our defence, against 
those who deny that we possess anything ; and would 
take from us everything which we have, if the power 
were given them. 

" On the other hand, no circumstances can make 
falsehood, or that which is founded on falsehood, to be 
Truth. No difficulties, perplexities, alarms, or dissatis- 
faction which men may feel in that branch of the Church 
of Christ in which the Providence of God has placed 
them, can justify them before God in embracing a sys- 
tem founded on a false principle. If there be any 
among us who have ever thought of adopting the Roman 
system, surely they are bound, under a fearful responsi- 
bility, to look narrowly, and see to what that system 
pledges them ; and judge candidly whether indeed this 
thing be of God, or of man. 1 ' — Robert Hussey, on 
the " Rise of the Papal Power" 



We are glad to learn that Messrs. E. P. Dutton 
& Co. propose to republish, (with the author's consent, 
and with additions from his hand,) the Letters of the 
Rev. J. W. Burgon to a Convert to the Roman Church. 
They contain a very thorough and well-argued view of 
some of the most important points in controversy be- 
tween the Anglican and Romish divines. We cordially 
recommend them to the attention of churchmen. 

W. R. WHITTINGHAM, 

Bishoj) of Maryland. 

J. WILLIAMS, 

Bishop of Connecticut. 

A. CLEVELAND COXE, 

Bishop of Western New York. 

E. D. ETONTINGTON, 

Bishop of Central New York. 

May, 1869. 



ENGLAND AND ROME: 



%^ 



€f)tee letters to a pettoett 



BY THE 
/ 

REV. JOHN W. BURGON, M.A., 

VICAR OF S. MARY THE VIRGIN'S, AND FELLOW OF ORIEL COLLEGE, 
OXFORD : GRESHAM LECTURER IN DIVINITY. 



Stare super antiquas vias. 




\ 




E. P. DUTTON AND COMPANY. 

New York: 713 Broadway. 
Boston: 135 Washington St. 

1869. 



Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1869, by 

E. P. DUTTON AND COMPANY, 

in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the District of Massachusetts. 

4 



The Library 
of Congress 

WASHINGTON 



-&$!< 



Sicut erravit Ecclesia Hierosolymitana, Alexandrina, 
et Antiochena, ita et erravit Ecclesia Bomana ; non 
solum quoad agenda et cceremoniarum ritus, verum in 
his etiam quoz credenda stmt. — Art. xrx. 



CAMBRIDGE: 

PRESS OF JOHN WILSON AND SON. 



TO THE PIOUS MEMORY 

OF THE 

RIGHT REV. JOHN HENRY HOPKINS, 

FIRST BISHOP OF VERMONT, 

AND SEVENTH PRESIDING BISHOP OF THE CHURCH IN 
THE UNITED STATES, 

2Tfjese $ages are most fjtimblg mscrifretJ 

BY ONE WHO PRAYS TO BE, LIKE HIM, 
"FAITHFUL UNTO DEATH." 



PREFACE. 



These three Letters on modern Romanism, 
now for the first time separately published, are 
the concluding ones, (xxiv. xxv. xxvi.) of 
certain Letters from Rome, which appeared 
in 1862. In some of the earlier of those 
Letters I had spoken of the sights of Rome 
with such generous warmth, — had displayed 
so much interest as well in the Churches, 
the services of the modern City, as in the 
precious relics of early Christendom which 
have been disinterred from the Catacombs, or 
burial-places of its ancient dead, — that I dis- 
covered (to my dismay) that I was running 
the risk of being misunderstood in certain 
quarters. While some well-meaning persons 
remonstrated with me for having found so 
much to admire and to praise at Rome, others 
ventured to address me in quite a different 
strain. With the proverbial indiscretion, vio- 
lence, and bad taste of perverts, — (who cease 
to be Catholics when they become Papists^) — 
some of these individuals took upon themselves 



Vlll PREFACE. 

to try to reduce me from my allegiance to the 
Church of my Baptism by abusing it. Shall I 
say that I perused their miserable letters with 
contempt and abhorrence ? or was it wonder 
and pity and sorrow which I rather felt ? A 
strong sense of the foolishness of the writers, — 
the miserable weakness of their position, — the 
imbecility of their arguments, — was, I believe, 
the predominating sentiment with which I flung 
their communications from me. 

But it seemed to me unreasonable to let the 
matter altogether drop, or to let off my assail- 
ants quite so easily. I had reason to know 
that many others besides myself had been 
similarly assailed, and I felt deeply for them. 
Many an ardent, enthusiastic girl, — many a 
sentimental, self-willed youth, — has been led 
away by the sophistries of a system which is 
peculiarly calculated to impose upon the un- 
derstanding through the feelings and the 
imagination. Brought up, perhaps, in a 
School which (by a flagrant abuse of lan- 
guage) styles itself "Evangelical," — utterly 
unaware of the impregnable strength of ~ their 
position as members of the Anglican branch 
of the Church Catholic, — and acquainted as 
little with the fatal weakness of the cause of 
modern Romanism, — these amiable persons 



PREFACE. IX 

too often become the dupes of designing Pa- 
pists. There has lately been some sharp sorrow, 
perhaps ; and the mind is found in a highly 
susceptible condition : or there has been some 
cruel disappointment ; and the heart is adroitly 
caught at the rebound : they give place in their 
minds to the insinuated " doubt," and suffer 
it to rankle there. They lend a willing ear to 
the delusive promise. The prospect of peace 
to those. — the dream of power to these, — to 
both alike the pretentiousness of the Romish 
theory, — proves overwhelmingly attractive. 
Too late they discover its hollowness ; or Satan 
is suffered to put out the eyes of those who 
have thus first blinded themselves ; so that, 
on this side the grave, they are perhaps not 
even allowed to discover so much as the extent 
of their own misery. 

It was in order, if possible, to avert this 
calamity at least from some of our people, that 
I originally wrote the three ensuing Letters. 
In what fitting language shall I express the 
thankfulness of this unworthy heart at the 
discovery which has been once and again made, 
that they have already been found useful for 
the end for which they were designed ? Re- 
quested now at last by the Right Reverend 
J. Williams, D.D., Bishop of Connecticut, to 



X PREFACE. 

allow these Letters to be reprinted in America, 
I have gladly edited them afresh ; and thank- 
fully availed myself of the opportunity to sup- 
plement them with some additional matter, as 
well as to revise the text throughout, and to 
correct several slight inaccuracies which had 
before crept in. 

A hundred fold rewarded for my pains shall 
I account myself if it shall please the God of 
Truth to bless what follows to the quieting 
of one unsettled spirit, the satisfying of one 
doubting mind ; if the remonstrance contained 
in the following pages shall avail to deter one 
wayward person from making shipwreck of 
his Faith, and imperilling his prospects of 
Eternal Life. Truly, men and women know 
not what they do when, by an act of reckless 
self-will, they transplant themselves from the 
Anglican to the Romish branch of the Church 
Catholic. Sin and sorrow await them at 
every step. " And what will ye do in the end 
thereof?" 

J. W. B. 

Oriel College, 
Feast of S. Bartholomew, A.D. 1868. 



CONTENTS. 



PAGE 

Preface 7 

LETTER I. 

Ordinary history of one who falls away from the 
church of england to the church of rome. — 
review of the several objections and difficul- 
ties commonly urged by such persons against the 
church of england. — validity of her orders. — 
her antiquity. — the doctrines she has repudia- 
ted. — transubstantiation. — invocation of saints. 

— purgatory. — prayers for the dead. — adora- 
tion of relics. — development. — the faith of 
the english church not indefinite. — unfaithful- 
ness, undutifulness, and doubt. — misapplication 
of the term "conversion." — the church of eng- 
land not " small." — the case of those who have 
forsaken her, considered. — the church of eng- 
land the mother of saints. — books of devotion. 

— closed and open churches. — no lack of de- 
voutness in our people. — st. george' s-in-the- 
east. — conditions of a church's existence. — 
the church of england not indifferent to 
truth. — her liturgy. — men of " moderate " 

VIEWS 13 

LETTER II. 

Shortcomings discoverable in the romish, as well 
as in the english church. — idolatry. — doctrine 
of purgatory and indulgences. — mariolatry. — 
superstition. — fabulous and foolish stories in 



Xll CONTENTS. 

Page 

THE ROMISH BREVIARY. — ENTIRE SYSTEM OF PUBLIC 
WORSHIP IN THE ROMISH CHURCH. — NEGLECT OF AN- 
TIQUITY. — MONSTROUS PRETENSIONS OF THE PAPACY. 

— REBAPTIZATION. — ROMANISM A POLITICAL POWER, 
AND ALSO A DEMORALIZING PRINCIPLE 114 

LETTER III. 
The only real question remains yet to be discussed : 
namely, the validity of the papal claim to uni- 
versal supremacy. — five theories briefly con- 
sidered. — the patriarchal claim. — the claim 
of conversion. — the claim of immemorial pos- 
session. — the claim from infallibility. — the 
claim, based on scripture and fathers, of being 
the successor of st. peter. — no primacy of au- 
thority given to st. peter. — st. peter not the 
founder of the church of rome: nor the first 
bishop of rome: nor recognised as having any 
supremacy by early councils and fathers. — 
cyprian's evidence. — conclusion 161 

APPENDIX A. 

THE TESTIMONY OF THE CATACOMBS 227 

APPENDIX B. 

" Invocation of saints " — " prayers for the dead " : 

— testimony of the catacombs 254 

APPENDIX C. 
Relics . 259 

APPENDIX D. 
Modern romish service 267 

APPENDIX E. 
Hours of the modern romish breviary offices . . 275 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 



LETTER I. 

Ordinary history of one who falls away from the 
church of england to the church of rome. — re- 
view of the several objections and difficulties com- 
monly urged by such persons against the church 
of england. — validity of her orders. — her an- 
tiquity. — the doctrines she has repudiated. — tran- 
substantiation. — invocation of saints. — purgatory. 

— prayers for the dead. — adoration of relics. — 
development. — the faith of the english church 
not indefinite. — unfaithfulness, undutifulness, and 
doubt. — misapplication of the term " conversion." 

— the church of england not "small." — the case 
of those who have forsaken her, considered. — the 
church of england the mother of saints. — books 
of devotion. — closed and open churches. — no lack 
of devoutness in our people. — st. george' s-in-the- 
east. — conditions of a church's existence. — the 
church of england not indifferent to truth. — her 
liturgy. — men of "moderate" views. 

To an unknown Correspondent. 

Sir, — You have thought fit to address me 
on the subject of my faith ; and to remonstrate 
with me on my ' position,' (as you are pleased 
to express it,) as a member of the Church of 
England. You are evidently one of those per- 



14 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

sons who have apostatised to Rome. And in- 
asmuch as there are doubtless many to whom 
you or your friends will have already written 
in a similar style, my reply shall be made pub- 
lic, for their help and advantage. Would to 
God that the considerations which I am about 
to offer may convince, if not yourself, at least 
some of them; or suffice at least to arrest 
them, — (if they have not already gone too 
far,) — in their downward course ! 

That last clause is added advisedly : for the 
history and method of seceders to Romanism 
is too often observed to be somewhat as fol- 
lows. And first, for their history. 

1. Born perhaps of Dissenting parents, — 
or, to say the least, educated in what are 
absurdly called " Low -Church principles ; " 
(those principles being of a kind which, if 
faithfully carried out, must infallibly conduct 
their professor to the Meeting-house rather 
than to the Church ;) — a man of superior 
instincts speedily discovers the unsatisfying 
nature of a purely human system. He is 
struck by the insecurity of his position. The 
absurdity of Dissent, in an intellectual point 
of view, offends his reason : its unscriptural 
character alarms his conscience : the practical 
immorality in which it so largely results, of- 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 15 

fends and disgusts him. He is taught the 
nature, and becomes initiated in the principles 
of the Church Catholic. The new wine at 
first gladdens his heart : if he be weak, it well 
nigh turns his brain. It has been unhappily 
poured into an " old bottle." This was inev- 
itable : but is it also inevitable that the bottle 
shall " burst ? " Not so. That depends on 
the method which is pursued by this weak 
vessel. 

2. The enthusiast, — (a young person most 
likely, and not improbably of the gentler sex,) 
— instead of resorting in the first instance to 
some thoughtful and learned priest of the An- 
glican Communion ; instead of seeking at his 
hands instruction and advice, in order that he 
may understand something of the History and 
Constitution, as well as obtain some acquaint- 
ance with the actual teaching of the Church 
of England ; ascertain his actual position as a 
member of that Church ; and in this way build 
himself up in his own most holy Faith ; — the 
young person of whom I am thinking, begins 
by assuming that he shall never find in the 
Church of his Baptism the peculiar nutriment 
which he fancies that he requires. This, he 
also assumes, that he shall find in the Church 
of Rome. He seems to argue in the following 



16 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

way : — It was Catholic teaching which he de- 
siderated in the first instance ; and Rome 
claims to be ' The Catholic Church.' More- 
over, (as if it were actually the case that the 
terms ' Romanist ' and ' Catholic ' are sim- 
ply convertible,) that appellation, in common 
parlance, is conceded to her members. He 
observes further that certain persons calling 
themselves " High Churchmen," are favour- 
able to the externals of public worship ; which 
externals Roine enjoys in the most profuse 
abundance. Certain Doctrines which he ap- 
proves, and which the same persons have to 
maintain against popular opposition, are also 
observed to be by the Church of Rome taken 
for granted. A little coterie of persons pro- 
fessing " thoroughly Catholic principles " is 
now probably joined ; and nowhere in the 
kingdom could a sect of Dissenters be found, 
more wedded to the tenet that outside their 
own small peculiar chapel, — nulla salus. The 
narrowest party views are espoused. To over- 
hear the conversation of this clique, you would 
imagine that a nosegay, lighted candles, and a 
Gregorian tone, — (the most primitive thing 
in the world, all on one note!) — must cer- 
tainly be in their estimation the articuli stantis 
vel cadentis Ecclesice. Some vile piece of fop- 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 17 

peiy in dress, they think worthy of approval 
and imitation. Opposition to the teaching of 
the Prayer-Book, offence given to weak breth- 
ren, and disregard shewn to the counsel of 
their Bishop, they call " contending for a prin- 
ciple." I forbear to inquire into the furniture 
of their private chamber ; or to scan too curi- 
ously the decorations of their persons. 

The rest of the story is soon told. No more 
pains have been taken to ascertain the truth 
about Romanism, than to understand how the 
case stands with their own Church. Whereas, 
therefore, at first, adaptations of Romish works 
of Devotion were resorted to, now there is a 
demand for the genuine article. Romish man- 
uals are at last habitually employed ; and 
acquaintance is freely formed with those who 
have already lapsed to Romanism. Doubts 
the most preposterous are now unblushingly 
instilled : slanders the most gross are daily 
insinuated : misrepresentations the most dis- 
creditable are bandied from lip to lip, without 
rebuke or contradiction. Let there be but an 
ardent temperament and a lively fancy, and the 
rest of the work goes on at railroad speed. 
The boldness with which Rome advances her 
pretensions overcomes the imagination. Some 
trifle haunts the memory. Some specious 

2 



18 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

saying rankles in the heart. There was an 
unscrupulous article, (anonymous, of course,) 
in some third-rate Romish Review which upset 
the judgment. The assurance that one's 
" Conversion " is daily prayed for, keeps on 
recurring like the cadence of some half-forgot- 
ten song. The influence of a stronger mind 
at this stage of the business is seldom want- 
ing . . . Now, what I wish you to observe is, 
that when things have come to this pass, — 
(not before !) — the faithless one is commonly 
found to bethink himself of the fact that he 
has been for months steadily advancing in a 
fatal direction ; that he has now reached the 
very edge of the precipice ; that his footing is 
unsteady, and that only a breath is wanted to 
carry him over headlong. It is now that he is 
commonly observed to make his first appeal 
to a priest of the Communion which he has 
already forsaken in heart ; and which he is 
conscious that he shall soon forsake entirely. 
Looking back, while already on the road to 
Oscott, he remarks, — " If you have anything 
to say, I am perfectly ready to hear it ; and 
have no objection to read anything you partic- 
ularly desire me to read. So please to say 
on." . . . Such persons have been even known 
to take the irrevocable step before your answer 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 19 

has had time to reach them ! But even if there 
is no precipitancy, and if at this stage of the 
business letters are exchanged to any extent, 
— who so blind and unpractical as not to see 
at a glance how unavailing all must be ? A 
rambling controversy, conducted on false prem- 
ises on the side of the apostatising spirit ; and 
too often a weak discussion of points which do 
not affect the life of the question at all ; con- 
cluded by a shameful act of secession to Ro- 
manism at the end of a few weeks ; — such is 
too often, in outline, the miserable history of 
this form of error ! 

3. I have designedly entered into these par- 
ticulars, and set them like a beacon in the very 
forefront of what I am about to say. Quite 
absurd is it to place an Anglican Priest in the 
position just described, and then to expect 
that his words can avail. The conscience has 
been too long tampered with. The poison has 
been too perseveringly imbibed. The antidote 
comes too late. A habit has been acquired 
which cannot be undone by a single act. No 
words on earth are sufficiently powerful now 
to break the unholy spell. . . . The supposed 
appeal should have been made at the outset, 
when the early awakening came : not at the 
very close of the business, when it only re- 



20 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

mains for the deluded one to set his seal to 
the fatal contract. 

I shall yet, for the sake of others, consider 
your strange appeal patiently and in detail. 
Arguments, as you must be aware, you have 
advanced none. But you make a number of 
assertions, and you hint at a variety of con- 
siderations, which seem to be (in your judg- 
ment) a sufficient warrant why I should forsake 
the Anglican branch of the Church Catholic, 
and seek " admission " into the Romish Com- 
munion. In my next letter, something shall 
be said on the other side ; and in my last, I 
will endeavour to shew you that if all your as- 
sertions were true, and if every consideration 
which you urge were well founded, it would 
still not follow by any means that Romanism 
must be my resource : for it shall be explained 
that all such points as the following, — with 
one single exception, — are absolutely irrele- 
vant ; and do not touch the life of the question 
in the least. 

4. That solitary exception, I proceed to con- 
sider and dispose of at once : for though you 
introduce the remark only in passing, — (" The 
very validity of the Orders of the English 
Church has been doubted"} — I cannot per- 
mit you to suppose that a charge of this nature 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 21 

is like the rest of those you adduce. If our 
Orders are invalid, then are we indeed in a 
piteous case ; for then are we not, properly 
speaking, a Church at all. I know nothing of 
a Church which has not a threefold order of 
Ministry. I- hold no Ordination to be valid 
which a Bishop has not bestowed ; and I can- 
not admit that any one is a true Bishop, whose 
commission and authority have not been de- 
rived to him in unbroken line from the Apos- 
tles of Jesus Christ Himself. 

That the preachers at Rome are accustomed 
to class us with " the Chinese ; " and to repre- 
sent our Church as a schism, — our Religion 
as a very Babel of confusion, — ourselves as a 
mere nation of sectarians ; — I am well aware. 
The Archbishop of Ferrara, last January, put 
forth a Notificazione Ecclesiastica, in which 
the following notable passage occurs: — " Da 
chi liaiino essi la loro missione ? poiche l'uomo 
non e obligato in materia di Fede a credere se 
non a chi ha prove d'essere mandate da Dio, 
somma Verita, o da Chi ne tiene cospicuamente 
e incontrastabilmente le veci in terra. — Do- 
mandate loro quale mai, e per qual ragione, 
fra tante loro sette diramantisi all' infinito, 
meriti la preferenza d'essere ascoltata ; se a 
mo' d'esempio la C/iiesa alta o la bassa, oppur 



22 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

la larga; se il dono dell' infallibility l'abbiano 
i Puseistij o gli Evangelici, o i Pietisti, o gli 
Ernuti, o i Metodisti^ o i Quaqneri . . . Chie- 
dete se almeno in qualche verita si sono ancor 
convenuti fra loro ; poiche, non ha molto, fra 
24,000 ministri anglicani non se ne trovarono 
due che battessero a segno in fatto di dogmat- 
iche dottrine, sicche, a detta di un Protestante 
basterebbe Funghia del pollice per iscrivervi 
sopra tutte le dottrine in cui vanno essi d'ac- 
cordo ; e come diceva un altro, a forza di 
riformare e protestare, il Protestantesimo si £ 
ridotto ad una serie di zeri." 1 [" Prom whom 
have they received their mission ? For in a 
matter of the Faith, man is not obliged to be- 
lieve any other than one who has proofs of 
being sent by God — the Supreme Truth, — or 
by him who visibly and incontestably stands 
in His place on earth. Ask them which of so 
many sects of theirs, branching out indefi- 
nitely, deserves preference in being heard, and 
for what reason: whether, for instance, the 
high, the low or even the broad church : — 
whether the gift of infallibility is possessed by 
the Puseyites, the Evangelicals, the Pietists, 
the Herrnhutters or United Brethren, the 

1 Gicmale di Roma, 3 or 5 Jan., 1861. 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 23 

Methodists, or the Quakers. . . . Ask them 
whether they have yet agreed among them- 
selves at least on some truth : since not long 
ago, of 24,000 Anglican ministers, no two 
were found to hold the same view of dogmati- 
cal doctrines, so that, according to one Protes- 
tant, all they agree upon might be written on 
the thumb-nail ; and as another said, by dint 
of reforming and protesting, Protestantism 
has been reduced to a series of cyphers."] 

This kind of statement is doubtless very con- 
venient, where none are present to contradict ; 
and may serve to blind the people of Italy to 
the truth concerning the Church of England, — 
Heaven only knows for how many years longer. 
Even in France, strange to relate, the same 
gross misconception of our position and prac- 
tices, popularly prevails. But such mistakes, 
— (I have no grounds for calling them wilful 
misrepresentations,) — cannot prevail for ever. 
Nor, (what is more to the purpose,) do they 
impress one with much respect for the contro- 
versial ability of those who put them forth. 
You and I, at all events, know better. That 
sad confusion of opinion prevails among cer- 
tain members of the Church of England, is 
true enough : but I question whether things 
are not worse in Italy and in France. That 



24 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

false brethren have been among us, the recent 
secessions from our Communion show plainly ; 
and that brethren quite as false (but not nearly 
so conscientious) remain behind, a volume re- 
cently published, entitled " Essays and Re- 
views," abundantly proves. But, for all that, 
we are not by any means so divided, practi- 
cally, as the Archbishop of Ferrara supposes ; 
while in theory , we of the English Church cer- 
tainly all " walk by the same rule ; " and 
" mind the same thing." Our ancient Brev- 
iary and Missal (after the Sarum Use) reformed 
and made " the Use of the united Church of 
England and Ireland," 1 — is our own imme- 
morial possession ; is in the hands of us all ; 
and constrains every one of us to speak the 
language of early Christendom to the present 
hour. Can as much be said for the congrega- 
tions of Italy, France, and Spain ? It is no- 
torious that no single doctrinal tenet which, 
can be truly called Catholic, is unrecognised 
in our authorised Books. What need to re- 
mark that " Methodists," " Quakers," and the 
like, are external to our Church, and too often 
its open enemies ? " High Church," — " Low 
Church," — " Broad Church," — are names 

1 Title-page of the Book of Common Prayer. 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 25 

colloquially employed among ourselves, to de- 
note persons whose private tastes and preju- 
dices incline them to take widely diverse views 
on all questions connected with Faith and 
Practice, as maintained by the Church of 
•England; but to the authoritative teaching 
of that Church they nevertheless are pledged 
ex animo to conform : and we, as a Church, 
ignore their very existence. Distinctive tenets 
in fact these schools have none. As for the 
gift of " Infallibility," it certainly resides 
neither with Puseyites nor with Freethinkers ; 
neither with so-called Evangelicals, nor with 
Papists. — But to return. 

So long as the following words stand in the 
Preface to the Ordinal of the Church of Eng- 
land, it must be admitted that her Theory is 
Apostolic : — "It is evident unto all men dili- 
gently reading Holy Scriptures and ancient 
Authors, that from the Apostles' time there 
have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ's 
Church, — Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. 
Which offices ... no man might presume 
to execute, . . . except he were . . . admitted 
thereunto by lawful authority. Therefore . . . 
no man shall be accounted ... a lawful 
Bishop, Priest, or Deacon in the Church of 
England, or suffered to execute any of the 



26 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

said functions, except he be . . . admitted 
thereunto, according to the Form, hereafter 
following ; or hath had formerly Episcopal 
Consecration, or Ordination." 

And if the Theory be Apostolic, how about 
the Practice of the English Church ? " The 
validity of her Orders," (you say,) "has been 
doubted" Are you not ashamed of thus re- 
producing "the Nag's Head fable"? which 
has been again and again proved to be an ab- 
surd forgery, and impudent calumny ; 1 w r hile, 
even by Romanists themselves the validity of 
English Orders has been elaborately main- 
tained. 2 I will not condescend to go further 
into this question with you, unless you will 
venture to give me a distinct challenge, and 
instead of saying that our Orders " have been 
doubted," — (as what Truth has not been 
doubted, in this lower world ?) — will deliber- 

1 See especially, The Story of the Ordination of our first 
Bishops in Queen Elizabeth's reign at the Nag's Head Tavern in 
Cheapside, thoroughly examined; and proved to be a late-invented, 
inconsistent, self-contradicting, and absurd Fable. By Thomas 
Browne, B.D., 8vo. 1731, pp. 495. 

2 Especially by Le P. E. le Courayer. The English 
reader will do well to consult the excellent Oxford Transla- 
tion which appeared in 1844 : — A Dissertation on the Validity 
of the Ordinations of the English, and of the Succession of the 
Bishops of the Anglican Church, &c, pp. 500. 



R&ME AND ENGLAND. 27 

ately inform me that you, after due inquiry, 
are yourself in doubt on the subject. . . . And 
now, to proceed a step. But not until I have 
modestly asked you the following question, 
which I shall thank you categorically to re- 
solve. 

The Church of Rome, as you are well aware, 
holds the Priest's Intention to be essential to 
the validity of a Sacrament. 1 Now, since this 
can never be certainly ascertained, — (indeed, 
for the most part, no security is either sought 
or given on the subject,) — what possible 
ground have you for your confident assump- 
tion that their Ordinations (and ' Orders ' with 
them is a Sacrament,) are valid, in any given 
instance ? Where, according to your own 
adopted theory, is your security for the val- 
idity of any sacramental act, — except those 
performed by yourself individually ? 2 

5. You are requested therefore to observe, 
in the next place, that I cannot allow you, 
even incidentally and in passing, to hint that 
the English Church is " only three hundred 

1 Concil. Trid. Sess. vii. Can. xi. 

2 The Canon was opposed at the Council of Trent, on 
these very grounds, by one of the Bishops then present, — 
Catharinus, Bishop of Minosi. — Scudaraore (Letters to a 
Seceder, p. 120,) quoting Sarpfs Hist. ii. p. 191, ed. 1620. 



28 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

years old" This is so entirely false a charge, 
so utterly irrational a statement, — (contra- 
dicted as it is by the plain evidence of His- 
tory,) — that I must insist upon its absolute 
withdrawal, before I condescend to argue with 
you for another instant. 

That the Church which we founded in Amer- 
ica, is of recent growth, is true. Yet more 
recent is the Church in India, in Australia, in 
New Zealand, at the Cape : while that in Cen- 
tral Africa is even now in process of founda- 
tion. But you ought to be aware that none 
of these Churches are any the worse on that 
account. Britain seems to have received the 
Gospel soon after Rome, as Rome seems to 
have received the Gospel soon after Jerusalem, 
— which is the Mother of all the Churches : 
but neither Rome nor England are any the 
worse for that. And the Gospel doubtless 
came to us, in the first instance, (as it came 
to Gaul,) from Asia Minor. 

Granting however that the flame had well 
nigh died out when Augustine the monk vis- 
ited our shores in the sixth century, and 
brought hither the Gallican, (not the Roman,) 
succession ; even so, the difference will be but 
this, — that Rome, (in consequence of her 
geographical position,) was blest with her ac- 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 29 

tual succession a few centuries before our- 
selves. 

Then, in the church so founded, you ought 
to know that there was no break at the period 
of the Reformation. The Church of England 
did but reform herself. Romanists really are 
sometimes heard to speak of the Reformation 
as if " the Protestants " were a distinct race, 
who came in and drove out " the Romanists," 
— who fled, (I suppose,) to Rome! But you 
at least ought to know better .... I have 
heard Romanists sometimes say, — "We built 
your churches." I should like to force them 
to explain what they intend to imply. They 
cannot mean that Rome supplied the funds out 
of which our churches were built: for the 
reverse is notoriously the case, — namely, that 
for a few hundred years before the Reforma- 
tion, England was drained of a great deal 
of money with which Italian churches were 
erected ! It cannot be pretended that the 
Ritual now used in the Romish Church, was 
before the Reformation used in the English 
Church ; which Old English Ritual was, at 
the time of the Reformation, by the English 
Church abandoned ; for the diametrical re- 
verse is notoriously the fact. First, it is de- 
monstrable that the ancient and the modern 



30 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

English Use is one and the same ; and next, 
that our ante-Reformation Use was so widely- 
discrepant from the Roman, that, (in the lan- 
guage of the most learned of modern Ritual- 
ists,) — "it may safely be affirmed that no 
Roman or continental priest can possibly, for 
many ages before the Reformation, have offi- 
ciated at an English altar." 1 

What can be meant then ? The same men 
who before held certain modern Romish errors, 
at last shook themselves free from those errors. 
The Church reformed herself. She began no 
new existence. She called in the aid of no 
fresh agents. She experienced no change in 
her succession. She remained what she was 
before, — with the single exception of her 
errors. Let the prosperous estate of England 
ever since be accepted as some proof that no 
wrath from Heaven descended upon her for 
what she then did ! That her vitality was not 
impaired thereby, let her daughter-churches 
all over the world attest! .... You are 
therefore requested to observe that you are 
not allowed for an instant to assert that the 
English Church is only three hundred years 
old. . . . And now, to proceed. 

1 Freeman, Principles of Divine Service, Part ii. p. 84. 



ROME AND ENGLAND. bl 

6. In your very first remark, you beg the 
whole question; for (1st), you assume that 
the teaching of the Church of Rome is identi- 
cal with the teaching of the first three or four 
centuries: and (2ndly), you assert that the 
Church of England has rejected the doctrines 
of those early centuries. On the first of these 
two assumptions, you proceed to build up a 
considerable fabric of self-glorification : on the 
second, you heap a mountain of abuse, and 
insist that all Englishmen ought to do as you 
have done, — namely forsake the Church of 
England and join the Church of Rome. 

But permit me to remind you that this is to 
proceed a great deal too fast. Be assured that 
you will find it utterly impossible to make out 
either position. The contradictory of the first, 
I propose to establish by-and-by. You shall 
be convinced that the Church of Rome not 
only does not hold the faith of the earliest age, 
but does not even profess to do so. And yet, 
the main thing which you have to remember 
is, that until you have proved that the Church 
of England has rejected the faith of the primi- 
tive Church, you have shown no reason what- 
ever why I should forsake her communion. 
It is conceivable, surely, that two branches of 
the Catholic Church may hold " the Catholic 



32 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

Faith," and profess " the Catholic Religion ; " 1 
and therefore be alike entitled to retain the 
undivided attachment of their respective chil- 
dren ! Now, — In which single particular will 
you pretend to tell me that the Church of Eng- 
land has departed from the faith of the first 
three centuries ? 

You open your indictment by informing me 
that " the Faith of the primitive Church is 
well known. We have Liturgies as far back 
as the times of the Apostles ; St. Paul himself 
having quoted," (as you say,) " from the Lit- 
urgy of St. James. And it is proved beyond 
a shadow of doubt by these ancient Liturgies, 
as well as by letters of the ante-Nicene Fath- 
ers, and by the Inscriptions in the Catacombs, 
that, in the first two centuries, Christians 
believed, (besides the Doctrine of the Real 
Presence, which is a matter of course,) in 
Transubstantiation, the Invocation of the B. 
Virgin and of Saints, Purgatory, Prayers for 
the Dead, and a reverence for Relics. What 
then," (you ask,) " are the ' corruptions ' of 
which the Church of England speaks, if these 
doctrines were held in the first two centuries, 
— which she deems so pure ? And how can 

1 Athanasian Creed. 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 33 

you rejoice in belonging to a Church which 
confessedly rejects these doctrines ? " — This 
is your charge, and these are your interroga- 
tories. 

I answer : — " The faith of the primitive 
Church " is indeed " well known : " but if you 
have been taught that (A) Liturgies of the 
Apostolic age, — (B) Letters of the ante-Ni- 
cene Fathers, — and (C) Inscriptions in the 
Catacombs, — prove that the primitive Church 
held (a) Transubstantiation, (b) the Invoca- 
tion of the B. Virgin, and of Saints, (c) the 
Romish doctrine of Purgatory, (d) Prayers for 
the Dead as practised by the modern Church 
of Rome, and (e) Adoration of Relics, — you 
have been grossly deceived, and are utterly 
mistaken. For in the first place, — 

(A) You have to learn that there exists no 
Liturgy of the date you imagine : (I heartily 
wish there did :) while your notion that St. 
Paul quotes from the (so-called) Liturgy of 
St. James, is just one of those extraordinary 
blunders which, in the judgment of any learned 
person, would suffice to put you at once and 
for ever out of court. It shows that you are 
not competent even to have an opinion on the 
subject on which you write with such confi- 
dence : for you ought to know that the absurd- 
3 



34 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

ity of such a notion is gross and patent. 
Take the truth however in the words of a 
learned ritualist of your own adopted com- 
munion, — Zaccaria. He is speaking of this 
very Liturgy. " I cheerfully admit that the 
Liturgies which pass under the names of the 
Apostles are of much more recent date, and are 
not authentic ." x The most ancient of all, is 
the (so-called) " Liturgy of Clement ; " which 
Bona conjecturally assigns to the 2nd or 3rd 
Century. But, (as a plain matter of fact,) no 
Liturgy seems to have been put into writing 
before the latter end of the fourth century : 
and the Liturgy of St. James, (of which we 
are speaking,) contains unequivocal interpola- 
tions which may be referred to a period subse- 
quent to the fifth century. 2 The appellation it 
bears, in the opinion of a competent judge, 3 is 
later than a.d. 380 .... You are convicted 
therefore of dogmatising on a subject which 
you do not understand. Without at all deny- 



1 Quoted by Maskell, Ancient Liturgy of the Church of 
England, &c, p. xxxvi. 

2 See Brett's Dissertation (§ 32) at the end of his Collec- 
tion of the principal Liturgies, &c. 1720, and since reprinted. 
The learned reader will have recourse to the volumes of 
Renaudot. 

3 Palmer's Origines, i. p. 44, 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 35 

ing the essential antiquity of the primitive 
Liturgies, (with which our own English Lit- 
urgy entirely agrees,) I insist on your observ- 
ing that they cannot be adduced as primitive 
(much less as Apostolic) evidence in support of 
any doctrines concerning which the Churches 
of Eome and of England are at variance. 

(B) You ought to produce your authorities 
from the " Letters of the ante-Nicene Fathers," 
— not simply refer to them as if they were a 
known series. What " letters " do you allude 
to ? Do you fancy that Cyprian, for example, 
held any of these errors ? 

(C) As for the testimony of the Catacombs, 
I have discussed it sufficiently in a separate 
publication ; 1 from which a large extract is 
subjoined to these letters. 2 — And now, having 
said all I can say about your supposed authori- 
ties, I proceed to tell you something about the 
history of those tenets for which you are so 
anxious to claim not only primitive Antiquity, 
but even Apostolic sanction : it being perfectly 
clear to me that you know next to nothing 
about them at all. 

(a) Teansubstantiation, (as I hope you 

1 Letters from Rome, p. 223 to 258. 

2 Appendix A. 



36 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

are aware,) denotes " the change of the sub- 
stance of bread and wine" 2 and no other 
thing. You are requested not to mix up this 
question with quite a distinct one, — viz. " The 
Doctrine of the Real Presence." Also, you 
are requested not to insinuate that " the doc- 
trine of the Real Presence " is anywhere repu- 
diated by the Church of England. To the 
phrase indeed, she lends no sanction. And 
why ? Because she fears lest she should 
thereby mislead her children. But that she 
holds the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy 
Eucharist is sufficiently proved by her teaching 
that " the Body and Blood are verily and in- 
deed taken and received by the faithful, in the 
Lord's Supper:" for how can anything be 
" verily and indeed taken and received" which 
is not verily and indeed (i. e. really} present ? 
It is only concerning the mode of her Lord's 
Sacramental presence, that the Church of 
England is severely silent ; because the mode 
of it hath nowhere been revealed, and hath 
never been decided. In the meantime, con- 
cerning " Transubstantiation," she declares 
boldly that it " cannot be proved by Holy 
Writ; is repugnant to the plain words of 

1 Art. xxviii. 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 37 

Scripture ; overthroweth the nature of a Sac- 
rament ; and hath given occasion to many 
superstitions." x 

Not to be tedious then, I invite your particu- 
lar attention to the following words of Gela- 
sius, who was Bishop of Rome a.d. 492-496. 
That learned man was engaged in controversy 
with the Eutychians. Now the heresy of Eu- 
tyches consisted in this, — that he assumed a 
conversion of the Human Nature into the 
Divine. He taught that the Humanity in the 
One Person of Christ was absorbed and wholly 
turned into the Divinity ; so transubstantiated, 
in short, that the Human Nature existed there 
no longer. The ancient Fathers who opposed 
this heresy made use of the sacramental union 
between the Bread and Wine, and the Body 
and Blood of Christ, in order to illustrate the 
Catholic Doctrine. They thereby showed that 
the Human Nature of Christ was no more 
really converted into the Divinity, (and so 
ceased to be the Human Nature,) than the 
substance of the Bread and Wine is really 
converted into the substance of the Body and 
Blood, and thereby ceases to be both Bread 
and Wine. A more unequivocal proof that 

i Ibid. 



38 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

the Church in those days understood no such 
doctrine as that of Transubstantiation, can 
scarcely be imagined. 1 I invite your attention 
to the emphatic language of one of those 
Fathers whom you must allow to be a most 
unexceptionable witness. Gelasius (Bishop 
of Rome) says, — " The Sacrament of Christ's 
Body and Blood, which we take, is doubtless a 
Divine thing, whereby we are made partakers 
of the Divine Nature : and yet it ceases not to 
be the substance, or to have the nature, of 
Bread and Wine. Doubtless also the image 
and likeness of Christ's Body and Blood are 
celebrated in the celebration of those mys- 
teries. To ourselves, therefore, it seems to be 
with sufficient clearness demonstrated that the 
self-same thing is to be thought of Christ our 
Lord, which in His image we profess [to exist, 
and believe that we] celebrate, and take, 
namely, — that as, by the operation of the 



1 Bishop Pearson remarks, — " There can be no time in 
which we may observe the doctrine of the ancients so 
clearly, as when they write professedly against an heresy 
evidently known, and make use generally of the same ar- 
guments against it. Now what the heresy of Eutyches 
was, is certainly known, and the nature of the Sacrament 
was generally made use of as an argument to confute it." — 
Art. hi. p. 162, note. 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 39 

Holy Spirit, they become this Divine sub- 
stance, and yet remain in their own proper noc- 
ture, — so do they demonstrate that that other 
crowning mystery, whose virtue and efficacy 
they faithfully exhibit, remains one Christ, 
because very and entire ; while yet the parts 
whereof He doth consist, abide in the propriety 
of their own nature." 1 .... In other words, 
— "One, not by conversion of the GoDhead 
into the flesh, [nor of the flesh into the God- 
head,'] but by taking of the Manhood into 
God." 

You perceive the conclusiveness of this quo- 
tation, of course, at once. Well may the 

1 " Certe Sacramenta quae sumimus corporis et sanguinis 
Christi Divina res est, propter quod et per eadem Divinae 
efficimur consortes naturae : et tamen esse non desinit sub- 
stantia vel natura panis et vini. Et certe imago et simili- 
tudo corporis et sanguinis Christi in actione mysteriorum 
celebrantur. Satis ergo nobis evidenter ostenditur, hoc 
nobis de ipso Christo Domino sentiendum, quod in ejus 
imagine profitemur, celebramus, et sumimus ; ut sicut in 
hanc, scilicet, in Divinam, transeant, Saxcto Spiritu per- 
ficiente, substantiam, permanentes tamen in suae proprie- 
tate naturae ; sic illud ipsum mjsterium principale, cujus 
nobis efficientiam virtutemque veraciter repraesentant, ex 
quibus constat proprie permanentibus, unum Christum, 
quia integrum verumque, permanere demonstrant." — This 
fragment of Gelasius may be seen in Pearson. It has also 
been elaborately edited by the late venerable President of 
Magdalen, in his Reliquice. 



40 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

modern Roman Catholic editors write cauti 
against the place. 1 It proves what was the 
doctrine of the Church of Rome, as declared 
by the Bishop of Rome, at the end of the fifth 
century: — a sufficient refutation of your no- 
tion that the doctrine of Transubstantiation is 
as old as the Liturgy of St. James. 

It may be new to you to hear that Chrysos- 
tom had said precisely the same thing as 
Gelasius. He was arguing against the Apol- 
linarians, whose heresy was cognate to that of 
the Eutychians. He says : — " As the bread 
before it is sanctified is called bread, but after 
Divine grace has sanctified it by the mediation 
of the priest, it is called bread no longer, but 
is accounted worthy to be called the Body of 
the Lord, though the nature of bread remain in 
it" &c, &c. Theodoret (a.d. 450) uses the 
same illustration in a well-known passage 
against the Eutychian heresy. To be brief, 
Tertullian, (a.d. 200,) Gregory, Bishop of 
Nyssa (a.d. 370), Augustine, Ephraem Bishop 
of Antioch, (a.d. 540,) Pacundus (a.d. 550,) 
Isidore Bishop of Seville, (a.d. 630,) — to- 
gether with many others, are all witnesses to 



1 See the quotation in Pearson On the Creed, — with that 
learned prelate's remarks upon it. 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 41 

the Catholic doctrine. You may see the places 
at length in Bingham ; 1 but in fact they have 
been a hundred times repeated. The term 
Transubstantiation was unknown in the Church 
for upwards of a thousand years ; and the doc- 
trine was not established until a.d. 1215. And 
so much for your first instance. 

(6) Your notion that the Invocation of 
Saints, and of the Blessed Virgin, is a primi- 
tive practice, again shows your ignorance of 
antiquity. For not only was the worship even 
of Angels forbidden by the 35th Canon of the 
Council of Laodicea, but the early Fathers 
expressly discourage all prayers to Saints. 
All this has been shown a hundred times. 
" Look into the more ancient Liturgies," (says 
Bp. Bull,) "as particularly that described in 
the ' Ecclesiastical Hierarchy,' and the Clemen- 
tine Liturgy, contained in the book entitled 
the ' Apostolical Constitutions ; ' and you will 
not find in them one prayer of any sort to An- 
gels or Saints ; no, not so much as an oblique 
prayer, (as they term it,) i. e. a prayer directed 
to God that He would hear the intercession of 
Angels and Saints for us." 2 



1 Origines, Book xv. cli. v. 

2 Works, vol. ii. pp. 26-56. 



42 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

You will find in Bingham's ' Antiquities,' * 
a sufficient proof made out, — (it can be but a 
negative proof, but it is complete,) — that no 
such worship as is now paid by the Romish 
Church to Saints was known in the early ages 
of Christianity. True enough it is that in the 
fifth century, we meet with a passage, perhaps 
with more than one, which seems to show that 
the exclamation, " Holy such-an-one help me ! " 

— casually uttered, is not, in the judgment of 
the writer, to be reprobated. Several places 
of a rhetorical or of a poetical kind are also 
easily discoverable, which a lively imagination 
might torture into the 4 Invocation of Saints.' 
But none of these places are capable of being 
pressed seriously into the argument. I refer 
you to what I have elsewhere offered on this 
subject. 2 You are requested to observe that a 
casual apostrophe to a departed human being, 

— (call it an ' Invocation ' if you please,) — 
is a vastly different thing from those direct 
prayers, for favours which God alone can 
bestow, which the modern Church of Rome 
systematically offers to Saints. For the sake 
of brevity, I beg to refer you on this entire 



1 B. xiii. ch. iii. §§ 1, 2, 3. 

2 Letters from Rome, p. 237-41. — See the Appendix B. 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 43 

subject to Palmer's 5th Letter to Wiseman. 
You are requested to read from p. 51 to p. 75. 
In the meantime you are to observe that the 
burthen of proof rests entirely with yourself; 
and that it is not such an invocation as was 
above alluded to that you have to produce, but 
a fair specimen of such invocations as by the 
Church of Rome are addressed to the Saints at 
the present day. I pass on, with the remark 
that a greater contrast cannot be imagined, 
than the ancient language of the Church re- 
specting the Blessed Virgin, and the language 
of the Modern Church of Rome on the same 
subject. 

(c) and (d) I must take your next two heads 
together, for a reason which will speedily ap- 
pear. That the early Church used Prayers for 
the Dead is quite certain. Equally certain is 
it that Prayers for the Dead as practised by the 
modem Church of Rome are a corrupt innova- 
tion, — altogether unknown to the purer ages 
of Christianity, 1 and pregnant with nothing but 
mischief. 

For what is the Romish theory of prayers 
for the dead, as at present practised ? It is 
inseparably mixed up with the received and 

1 See Bingham on this subject, — B. xv. ch. iii. §§ 16, 17. 



44 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

approved doctrine that Purgatorial fire awaits 
the souls of the just after death. Purgatory 
is feigned to be a place and state of misery and 
torment, whereunto faithful souls go presently 
after death ; and there remain until they are 
thoroughly purged from their dross, or deliv- 
ered thence by Masses, Indulgences, &c. These 
pains " are supposed to be inflicted in order to 
satisfy the justice of God for the temporal 
punishment still remaining due for remitted 
mortal sin, or for venial sin still remaining." 2 
For, (as the Council of Trent decrees,) " tem- 
poral punishment remains, for the most part, to 
be discharged, after eternal punishment has been 
removed" 2 In short, it is held that God con- 
signs the just, on their exit from this world, 
for an indefinite period, to the torture of Hell- 
fire ; and the Romish Theologians teach that 
the punishment of Purgatory " is the very 
same as that of Hell; its eternity only being 
removed." 3 Now this doctrine of temporal 
punishment is the very foundation, the key- 
stone of the whole Romish system, as it comes 
to view in respect of Satisfaction, Purgatory, 



1 Palmer's Vlth Letter to Wiseman. 

2 Concil. Trident. Sess. xiv. 

3 See the authorities in Palmer, as above, p. 22. 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 45 

Indulgences, Masses, and Prayers for the Dead. 
To keep now to the last-named point. 

Prayers for the Dead, according to the 
modern Romish theory, have it for their 
special object to deliver souls out of the pains 
of Purgatory. But Purgatory itself has been 
shown a hundred times to be a fiction, — with- 
out foundation in Scripture, Reason, or Primi- 
tive Tradition : x repudiated by the Greek 
Church, — spoken of with hesitation by not a 
few of the writers of your adopted Com- 
munion, — maintained, I fear, for nothing so 
much as for mercenary motives. Disconnect 
the doctrine of Purgatory from the doctrine of 
Prayers for the Dead ; — I mean, suppose only 
that this corrupt fable had never sprung up to 
teach the Church of England the practical 
danger of encouraging her children to pray 
for the departed ; — and it may reasonably 
be suspected that she would have retained 
in her public services some more distinct re- 
cognition of this primitive practice than is 
actually to be found in any of them, at the 
present day. 

And yet, I request you to observe that a 



1 See Stillingfleet's Rational Account, &c, p. iii. ch. vi. — 
Also Bp. Bull ; Sermon iii. p. 72. 



46 ROxME AND ENGLAND. 

Christian of the primitive Age would have 
been quite content with our existing practice. 
A few expressions in the prayers which are 
found in our Burial Service, and that general 
commemoration of all the faithful departed 
which we employ at the oblation of the Holy 
Eucharist, — (' Finally we bless Thy holy Name 
for all Thy servants departed this life in Thy 
faith and fear,') ■ — are conceived in the true 
spirit of the early Church. We include in the 
last-mentioned eucharistic prayer, without nam- 
ing her, the Blessed Virgin Mary, — whom the 
primitive Church expressly named in the cor- 
responding part of their service. The old 
Roman Missals adopted this Catholic practice 
of praying for all Saints, — Patriarchs, Proph- 
ets, Apostles, Evangelists, Martyrs, Confessors, 
Bishops, being of course therein included. But 
the Church of Rome adopts very different lan- 
guage at the present day. In a word, the 
Romish fable of Purgatory has given to Prayers 
for the Dead, as practised by the Church of 
Rome, quite a new character and complexion : 
and you are requested to observe that not one 
of the Patristic places commonly quoted in 
support of the Doctrine of Purgatory will 
sustain any part of the burthen you purpose 
to build upon it. 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 47 

It would be easy to multiply authorities, and 
to draw out in detail proofs of the modernness 
of the practices under review. But this is not 
my present object. I have said enough to show 
you that Purgatory is the reverse of a Catholic 
Doctrine, and that such Prayers for the dead 
as Rome employs are a modern and a corrupt 
practice. 

(e) The Adoration of Relics you will be 
pleased to remember is what I call a modern, 
— you, a primitive practice. You would ap- 
peal, I dare say, if hard pressed, to the many 
indications extant of honour paid to relics from 
the earliest period of the Christian Church. 
But honour is not adoration. We ' honour ' 
Men: we 'adore' only God! You, on the 
contrary, pay " Latria," or Divine Worship, to 
Relics. 

That such Adoration is authorised and ap- 
proved in the Romish Communion, you will 
find demonstrated in Palmer's 8th letter to 
Wiseman : and that it was unknown in the 
primitive Church, you will find established by 
Bingham in the last chapter of the last Book 
of his great work. It has been shown, (he 
says,) " that there was no religious worship 
given to the Relics of Saints and Martyrs for 
several of the first ages in the Church." Ma- 



48 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

billon owns that there were no Relics set upon 
altars even to the 10th century. 

Permit me to invite your attention to a gal- 
lant challenge which was given by an English 
Bishop just 300 years since, but which to the 
end of time will not be accepted. Bishop 
Jewel thus spoke and wrote in 1560 : — "If 
any learned man of all our adversaries, or if 
all the learned men that be alive, be able to 
bring any one sufficient sentence out of any 
old Catholic Doctor, or Father, or out of any 
old general Council, or out of the Holy Scrip- 
tures of God, or any one example of the primi- 
tive Church, whereby it may be clearly and 
plainly proved (1) that there was any Private 
Mass in the whole world at that time, for the 
space of six hundred years after Christ; or 
(2) that there was then any Communion 
ministered unto the people under one kind ; 
or (3) that the people had their Common 
Prayers then in a strange tongue that they 
understood not; or (4) that the Bishop of 
Rome was then called an ' Universal Bishop,' 
or the ' Head of the Universal Church ; ' or (5) 
that the people was then taught to believe that 
Christ's Body is really, substantially, corpor- 
ally, carnally, or naturally, in the Sacrament ; 
or (6) that His Body is, or may be, in a 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 49 

thousand places or more, at one time ; or (7) 
that the priest did then hold up the Sacrament 
over his head ; or (8) that the people did then 
fall down and worship it with godly honour ; 
or (9) that the Sacrament was then, or now 
ought to be, hanged up under a canopy ; or 
(10) that in the Sacrament, after the words of 
Consecration, there remaineth only the acci- 
dents and shows, without the substance of 
bread and wine ; or (11) that the Priest then 
divided the Sacrament in three parts, and 
afterwards received himself all alone ; or (12) 
that whosoever had said the Sacrament is a 
figure, a pledge, a token, or a remembrance 
of Christ's body, had therefore been judged 
for an heretic ; or (13) that it was lawful 
then to have thirty, twenty, fifteen, ten, or 
five masses said in one Church, in one day ; 
or (14) that Images were then set up in the 
Churches to the intent the people might wor- 
ship them ; or (15) that the lay-people was 
then forbidden to read the Word of God in 
their own tongue : — If any man alive were 
able to prove any of these articles by any 
one clear or plain clause or sentence, either 
of the Scriptures, or of the old Doctors, or 
of any old General Council, or by any ex- 
ample of the Primitive Church, I promise 
4 



50 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

them that I would give over and subscribe 
unto him" 2 

I have now said enough to prove that you 
are utterly mistaken in supposing that the 
several doctrines you enumerate are sanc- 
tioned by the testimony of the first two or 
three centuries of the Church. You have 
been shown that the very reverse is the case ; 
viz., that the evidence of the earliest ages 
entirely condemns those doctrines. — Give me 
leave to remind you however of a circumstance 
which you clearly lose sight of: namely that if 
the Doctrines in question were ever so true, it 
would not by any means follow that I must 
therefore become a Romanist. In order to 
convince me of the necessity of that, you will 
have further to convince me that a belief in 
those Doctrines is generally necessary to Sal- 
vation. Now pray mark how the case stands 
between us. While you cannot even pretend 
to assert this, 7 do most unhesitatingly assert, 
(with Bishop Bull,) that it positively endan- 
gers a man's Salvation that he should hold 
some of the doctrines you advocate. 2 The 

1 Sermon at Paul's Cross, 1560, Works (Parker Soc), i. 
p. 20. 

2 See Bp. Bull's Discourse on the Corruptions of the 
Church of Rome, sect. i. ad init. Works, ii. p. 239. 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 51 

case therefore between you and me, is some- 
what peculiar. 

7. You propose next to lead me a dance into 
the Doctrine of "Development:" but excuse 
me for telling you plainly that you have not 
the necessary powers for a prolonged discussion 
of this nature ; which moreover, (as it ought 
to be plain to you,) is very little ad rem, after 
we have seen that your appeal to Antiquity has 
broken down. "Development" is a theory 
which has been invented by the apologists of 
modern Eomanism in order to account for the 
actual corruption of Doctrine in the Romish 
Church ; but it is attended with certain fatal 
inconveniences, as I can easily show you : 
while the argumentative worth of the theory 
of Development is absolutely nothing at all. 
Let me explain. 

True enough it is that, in a certain sense, 
"there have been Developments in Religion." 
The " Te Deum " of the Western Church is, I 
believe, the beautiful development (expansion 
I should rather have called it) of a short East- 
ern Hymn ; the germ of which is contained 
in the " Trisagion," or cry of the Seraphim, 
— as recorded by the prophet Isaiah, eh. vi. 
The Hymn of the Blessed Virgin may be re- 
garded as a development of the song of Han- 



52 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

nah : and the germ of both, I have always been 
taught to discern in the short hymn of Sarah, 
set down in Gen. xxi. 6. Our Litany, in like 
sort, may be regarded as a lawful develop- 
ment, (expansion I must again prefer to call 
it,) of the three-fold invocation which ritual- 
ists call, " the lesser Litany." * Somewhat 
thus, many parts of our Church service may 
be accounted for. A code of Laws is con- 
ceivable which might be regarded as the de- 
velopment of the Divine command, — " Love 
thy neighbour as thyself." Nay, if I under- 
stand the words of Christ rightly, " the Law 
and the Prophets " are, in a certain sense, a 
development of Deut. vi. 5 and Levit. xix. 18. 
But then it requires little wit to see that to 
account in this manner for the doctrine of 
Purgatory, for example, or for the Worship 
of the Blessed Virgin Mary, — is to beg the 
entire question. He who so argues forgets 
that Development may be lawful, or it may be 
unlawful; and that the name for an unlawful 
Development in respect of Doctrine, is a cor- 
ruption. Thus the Adoration of Relics as 
practised in the Church of Rome, I hold to 
be a manifold abuse of a sentiment in itself 

1 " Lord, have mercy upon us, Christ," &c. 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 52 

not only faultless but commendable. In the 
Martyrdom of Polycarp, as related by the 
Church of Smyrna, is read as follows : — " We 
afterwards gathered up his bones, more valua- 
ble than gold and precious stones, and depos- 
ited them in a fitting place." 1 Turn from this 
expression of natural piety, and survey the 
picture sketched by myself elsewhere. 2 You 
may call this "Development" if you please. 
All persons of unsophisticated understanding 
will hold it to be a corruption, depravation, or 
abuse. 

Development again may be perfectly law- 
ful : but it may be the development of some 
doctrine or practice which is in itself errone- 
ous. Thus the doctrine of the Immaculate 
Conception of the Blessed Virgin seems to be 
a perfectly lawful development of the Adora- 
tion paid to the Blessed Virgin. Indulgences 
and Pardons are, (for aught I see to the con- 
trary,) perfectly legitimate developments ; but 
then they are developed from the Romish doc- 
trine of Purgatory, — which is confessedly a 
fable. 

For, (to take Analogy still for our guide ; it 
being quite unreasonable that we should for- 

1 C. xviii. 2 See Appendix C. 



54 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

sake Analogy when it begins to make against 
us :) — What is the teaching of " moral, intel- 
lectual, political, and social" life? (I accept 
your challenge and quote your own words. In 
" vegetable life," the exquisite phenomenon of 
orderly growth and increase seems to make for 
you: "first the blade, then the ear, after that 
the full corn in the ear." 1 But what, I ask, 
are the phenomena of moral, intellectual, politi- 
cal, social existence ?) In the first and second, 
does your conscience tell you nothing which it 
is inconvenient just now to remember ? Has 
not the full " development " of early faults of 
character caused you many a time to cry out 
" miserable man that I am " ? Have you 
never heard of corrupt institutions in the 
State; or have you never been the unwilling 
witness of a disordered civil and social fabric ? 
Where have you lived, and where has your 
observation been, if in almost every depart- 
ment of human agency, you have not noticed 
the fatal tendency of seminal errors, — (or at 
least the perversion of principles which in 
themselves were true and good,) — to germi- 
nate into corrupt practices ; and these again 
to branch out into endless developments for 

■ St. Mark iv. 28. 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 55 

evil ? . . . You will of course tell me that I 
have no right to assume that in the Church of 
Rome the germs of the Doctrines in dispute 
were " seminal errors," or " perversions " of 
true principles. But I must in turn again 
remind you, that you are begging the whole 
question when you assume that they were not. 
For (I repeat) two phenomena are before 
us : — The grown-up plant, gemmed all over 
with fruit or flower, which is the lawful and 
lovely result of a little insignificant seed : and, 
The dead man, corrupt from head to foot, — 
which is the lawful and loathsome result of a 
few particles of poison received into the con- 
stitution. It cannot, of course, be pretended 
that the Church of Rome shall be the field for 
the exclusive manifestation of the former class 
of phenomena : and all the other Churches 
of Christendom, including the Holy Eastern 
Church, the scene for the exclusive manifesta- 
tion of the latter. This were mere folly. 
That the Holy Spirit dwells in the Church of 
Christ, I believe as sincerely as you do ; but 
then it cannot be thought to reside exclusively 
in any one branch of it. And as for supposing 
that He is the Author of all Romish Doctrine, 
I hold on the contrary that " as the Church of 
Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch have 



56 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

erred, so also the Church of Rome hath erred, 
not only in their living and manner of cere- 
monies, but also in matters of Faith." 2 . . . 
The argumentative value of Development is 
therefore absolutely nothing ; while the prac- 
tical inconvenience of a theory which is as 
likely as not to result in the condemnation of 
its advocate, is obviously fatal. 

I will dismiss the subject by reminding you 
of a passage in Church History, — the first 
which comes to mind. " In the course of the 
correspondence" of the Patriarchs, Archbish- 
ops, and Bishops of the Greek Church with the 
Nonjurors, " the Patriarchs of the Bast are 
not sparing in their censures of the Pope of 
Rome." They describe him to be " deceived 
by the Devil, and falling into strange novel 
doctrines ; as revolted from the Unity of the 
Holy Church, and cut off; tossed at a distance 
with constant waves and tempest, till he re- 
turn to our Catholic, Oriental, immaculate 
faith ; and be reinstated from what he was 
broken off." They declare " the Purgatorial 
fire to have been invented by the Papists to 
command the purse of the ignorant, and we 
will by no means hear of it. For it is a fic- 

1 Art. xix. 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 57 

tion, and a doting fable, invented for lucre, 
and to deceive the simple, and in a word, has 
no existence but in the imagination. There is 
no appearance or mention of it in the Holy 
Scriptures, or Fathers, whatsoever the authors 
or abettors of it may clamour to the con- 
trary." 1 

Now, suppose the Churches of England, Ire- 
land, and America, (not to speak of India, 
New Zealand, Southern Africa, Australia, and 
the rest,) were one and all to endorse this 
opinion of the Greek Church respecting the 
Romish Doctrine of Purgatory, appealing as 
the Greek Church does to Scripture and Fath- 
ers ; — what possible weight can you suppose 
would attach to a little babble about seeds, — 
and growth, — and development, — and ma- 
turity, — and perfection ? Further, If Purga- 
torial Indulgences, — or the Immaculate Con- 
ception of the Blessed Virgin, — or any other 
single doctrine to which the Church of Rome 
has solemnly and irrevocably pledged herself, — 
may be thus disposed of, — what, I ask, be- 
comes of the security of all the rest ? . . . . 
I pause for an answer. 



1 Life of Ken, by a Layman, 1854, p. 183, quoting Lath- 
bury's Hist, of the Nonjurors, p. 350. 



58 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

But let me not leave the question thus. I 
would rather direct your eyes in the right 
direction. You are requested therefore to 
take notice that whenever in ancient times it 
became necessary to define more accurately 
than had been done before, any single depart- 
ment of Christian doctrine, the invariable 
method was to appeal to Holy Scripture. I 
venture to say there is not to be found one 
single ancient exposition of Doctrine where 
the appeal is made to the principle of Develop- 
ment, or to private Tradition. Universal belief 
is indeed sometimes insisted on : but only 
rarely. The appeal is generally made to Holy 
Scripture ; and its probable meaning, as it may 
be gathered from the consentient voice of an- 
cient Fathers, and from the general analogy of 
Holy Writ, — is discussed, just as it is dis- 
cussed by ourselves at the present day : while 
the unequivocal witness of the Spirit, (and 
that only,) is accounted absolutely conclusive, 
and altogether final. — Now, to proceed. 

8. You assert that we of the English Church 
" have no definite Faith." This charge is too 
feeble to stand. No one can read the 89 Arti- 
cles and complain that we have " no definite 
Faith." What of our Prayer-Book, with its 
occasional Offices ? All you can mean is that 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 59 

Anglican teaching is not so definite as you wish 
it was, and think it ought to be : that there is 
a want of definiteness of teaching in the Angli- 
can Church. Now, even if there were, that 
would constitute no reason whatever for my 
becoming a Romanist. As well might I expect 
to persuade a Romanist to forsake his own 
Communion, on the ground that, in the judg- 
ment of myself and others, there is a vast deal 
too much definiteness in Romish teaching. 

But I simply deny the charge which you 
bring against us; while I deliberately bring 
the opposite charge against you. I maintain 
that the teaching of our Prayer-Book is suffi- 
ciently definite; and is altogether Catholic, — 
which is certainly what cannot be said of yours. 
No man can be at a loss as to the Church's 
mind on any important point. That, within 
certain limits, she allows to her children con- 
siderable freedom of sentiment, is undeniable ; 
and that they have not been slow to take ad- 
vantage of her charity, is only too clear. But 
I have yet to learn how it can be made a grave 
ground of accusation against a Church that 
terms of communion with her are of a large, 
and altogether of a Catholic kind, — not multi- 
tudinous, narrow, and in their character often 
quite novel, as well as unheard-of in ancient 



60 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

times. The Churches of Rome and of Eng- 
land are built alike on a rock ; but not only 
the materials out of which they are constructed, 
but the very method of their construction are 
somewhat different. The one boasts herself 
rigid and unyielding ; the other (like the Ed- 
dystone) is observed to rock slightly in the 
storm. that she may stand for ever ! 

Give me leave in the meantime to remind 
you that you are not at liberty to assume that 
perfect unanimity of sentiment on doctrinal 
points prevails in the Church of Rome. Con- 
cerning Purgatory, for instance, you will find 
a great deal of contradictory teaching among 
Romish Theologians. On the doctrine of Papal 
Infallibility you will also find immense discrep- 
ancy of doctrine. I shall have something to 
say on this subject by and by. Are you aware 
how solemnly the dogma of the Immaculate 
Conception is repudiated by thousands of 
Romanists ? condemned as sinful, in print ? 
But I forbear to enlarge. 

In the meantime, I insist on your observing 
that no sooner do Romish controversialists find 
themselves hard pressed in argument, than 
they labour to show that their Communion is 
characterised by that very feature which, at 
other times, they make a point of casting in 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 61 

our teeth as a ground of reproach. They find 
it convenient to distinguish the doctrines and 
practices prevalent in the Roman Communion 
into two classes ; " the former consisting of 
matters of Faith, or doctrines defined by the 
Church ; the latter consisting of matters of 
Opinion, or doctrines not so defined. The use 
made of this distinction in all writings and 
discourses intended for those who are opposed 
to Romanism, is to avoid all responsibility for, 
and all discussion on doctrines of the latter 
class, by representing them as mere non-essen- 
tials, which any member of the Roman Com- 
munion may dispute or reject at pleasure ; 
while the attention of opponents is drawn en- 
tirely to the former class of doctrines, which 
being commonly proposed in general terms and 
with great caution, are far less assailable." 

This is ingenious enough, but not honest, — 
as the acute living controversialist on our side 
of the question, just quoted, has ably shown. 1 
At the same time, it is undeniably true that 
the language of the Council of Trent is to the 
last degree indefinite, — compared with the lan- 
guage of Romish Divines : the falsity consists, 
in the favourite assumption of your new friends, 

1 Palmer's Letters to Wiseman, 1842. 



62 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

(whenever the assumption suits them,) that 
the Decrees of Trent are the only authoritative 
teaching of the Church of Rome. 

But as you complain of the want of definite 
teaching in the Church of England, let me ad- 
dress a few words to you about the definiteness 
of teaching which is certainly conspicuous in 
the Church of Rome. 

For the character of her teaching, as already 
hinted, is characterised by no more pernicious 
peculiarity than this very definiteness, the want 
of which in us you point out as a grave defect. 
" Romanism professes to be a complete Theol- 
ogy. It arranges, adjusts, explains, exhausts 
every part of the Divine Economy. It may be 
said to leave no region unexplored, no heights 
unattempted ; rounding off its doctrines with 
a neatness and finish which are destructive of 
many of the most noble and most salutary exer- 
cises of mind in the individual Christian. That 
feeling of awe which the mysteriousness of the 
Gospel should excite, fades aivay under this 
fictitious illumination which is poured over the 
entire Dispensation. Criticism, we know, is 
commonly considered fatal to poetical fervour 
and imagination ; and in like manner this tech- 
nical Religion destroys the delicacy and reve- 
rence of the Christian mind. . . Rome would 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 63 

classify and number all things ; she would 
settle every sort of question, as if resolved to 
detect and compass by human reason what runs 
out into the next World or is lost in this. . . . 
Not content with what is revealed, Romanists 
are ever intruding into things not seen as yet, 
and growing familiar with mysteries ; gazing 
upon the ark of God over boldly and long, till 
they venture to put out the hand and to touch 
it." " This mischievous peculiarity of Roman- 
ism" (proceeds Mr. Newman,) — " its subject- 
ing Divine Truth to the intellect, and professing 
to take a complete survey and to make a map 
of it, — it has in common with some other 
modern systems." 1 Yes indeed. Prom Ro- 
manism to Rationalism there is but a single 
step. 

And practically, the Romish method is mis- 
chievous. It discourages a spontaneous ser- 
vice of God. , It encourages formalism. " It 
lowers the dignity and perfection of Morals ; 
it limits, by defining, our duties, — in order to 
indulge human weakness, and to gain influence 
by indulging it." " If, indeed," (remarks the 
thoughtful writer already quoted,) " there is 

1 Newman's Lectures on the Prophetical Office of the Church, 
pp. 110-12; 123. 



64 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

one offence more than the rest characteristic 
of Romanism, it is this, its indulging the car- 
nal tastes of the multitude of men, setting a 
limit to their necessary obedience, and absolv- 
ing them from the duty of sacrificing their 
whole lives to God. And this serious deceit 
is in no small degree the necessary consequence 
of that completeness and minuteness in its 
Theology to which the doctrine of Infallibility 
gives rise." 1 

The same writer thus sums up his charge 
against Eome, based on that very " definite- 
ness," or " bold exactness in determining the- 
ological points," which seems to you so attrac- 
tive ; but which he justly describes as " a 
minute, technical, and imperative Theology, 
which is no part of Revelation." " It pro- 
duces," (he says,) " a number of serious moral 
evils ; is shallow in Philosophy, — as profess- 
ing to exclude doubt and imperfection ; and is 
dangerous to the Christian spirit, as encourag- 
ing us to ask for more than is given us, as 
fostering irreverence and presumption, confi- 
dence in our Reason, and a formal or carnal 
view of Christian obedience." 2 



i Ibid. p. 126. 

2 Newman's Lectures, ut supra, pp. 126 ; 146 ; 127. 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 65 

9. You inquire, — "Do you never doubt? 
Do you never ask yourself, am I in the 
right?". . . . Never, — I answer. Why should 
I? Does the owner of ancestral acres and 
an ancient title wake up some fine morning, 
troubled with a doubt as to the validity of his 
right to all he enjoys, — all his Fathers enjoyed 
before him ? . . . . WIw ever in his old age, un- 
provoked, begins to doubt whether he is his 
own mother's son, and vows that he will not 
Test until he has had the point demonstrated 
to him ; as well as until he has inspected the 
marriage-certificate of his parents ? . . . . I re- 
ject your question with equal scorn and abhor- 
rence. 

You proceed, — " How do you know you are 
right?" 

I may with far better reason rejoin, — And 
pray, sir, How do you know that you are ? 
You say that you are as convinced about your 
own position as that there is a sun in Heaven. 
— Exactly so am I about mine. — The differ- 
ence between us is just this. / am in the 
Church where God's good Providence origi- 
nally placed me : you, by a reckless exercise 
of the right of private judgment, have licen- 
tiously transplanted yourself into a foreign 
Communion. The burthen of proof rests alto- 

5 



66 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

gether with you. If there be no Salvation 
except to members of the Romish branch of 
the Church Catholic, I must depend on God's 
tender mercies, with Andrewes, and Hooker, 
and *Cosin, and Bull, and Pearson, and Bev- 
eridge, and Butler, and all the rest of the 
reverend Fathers of the Church of England. 
But if you have erred, — sir, you have erred 
indeed ! 

10. You tell me that I have nothing to go 
by: — that I cannot appeal to the Scriptures, 

— for every sect finds its own tenets there : (in 
which by the way you are quite mistaken, for 
I defy any one to find some of yours there !) 

— and that I cannot appeal to the English 
Church, because it comprises every shade 
of opinion: — in short that I hold certain 
" opinions," but cannot pretend to any Faith 
at all. 

You are really very saucy. Permit me to 
give you a plain man's view of this question. 

I was born a member of the Church of Eng- 
land, and I bless God for it. Its prima facie 
claims upon my allegiance therefore I hold 
to be altogether paramount. In fact, I can 
scarcely conceive any adequate cause arising 
for my ever quitting the Church of my Fathers. 
To be sure, if that Church were to commit 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 67 

herself irrevocably to all sorts of awful super- 
stitions and heresies, — I might feel compelled 
to consider with myself what was next to be 
done. But, generally speaking, the errors 
of our Ecclesiastical rulers, (which are the 
Church's misfortunes,) — the unfaithfulness 
of individual teachers, — the growth of heresy, 

— the spread of unbelief ; — all these things 
instead of driving me out of the Church, would 
only rivet me the more firmly in it. I should 
simply feel that there was the more to be done , 
the greater mischief to be counteracted, — the 
more need of men to " strengthen the things 
which remain." The last thing which would 
enter into my head would be to treat the 
Church as an impatient child treats a toy: 
namely, when out of humour with it, to in- 
quire for another. Does an officer think of 
deserting his men because they are thinned by 
disease, and are become demoralised ? Does a 
son think of forsaking his parents, a husband 
his wife, — because of sickness, — misfortune, 

— loss of comeliness ? 

I should have felt and acted much in the 
same way, I am persuaded, had I been born a 
Romanist : and I think I should have felt and 
acted rightly. The claims of that Church in 
the bosom of which God causes us to be brought 



68 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

up, — are, in the first instance, paramount. 
We must try to improve the Church of our 
birth, not to find excuses for forsaking' it. To 
reform a corrupt Communion, not to work its 
downfall, should surely be our aim ! To resist 
State interference indeed, and to protect the 
Faith, is reserved for very few. But to main- 
tain sound Doctrine, and strenuously to oppose 
every kind of error, is the province of a very 
large number : while to raise the standard of 
holiness, and to promote the growth of practi- 
cal Religion, is within the power of all. . . . 
Such seems to me to be the business of the 
individual believer. His work is within the 
Church, — not in the camp of the enemy. To 
be busy there, is to be a traitor! . . . The 
fundamental position on which these remarks 
are built you will perceive to be the following, 
— that in whatever branch of the Church 
Catholic God has caused our lot to be thrown, 
there we may reasonably hope to " save our 
souls alive," if we make the most of the op- 
portunities within our reach, and of the 
advantages we enjoy. Individual obedience, 
— personal holiness, — these are the only con- 
ditions requisite for blessedness. 

The fundamental position in your remon- 
strance, on the other hand, seems ta be this, 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 69 

— That men and women are not only at liberty, 
but are called upon, and positively bound, to 
doubt their position ; to weigh the claims of 
one section of Christendom against those of 
another: to exercise their right of private 
judgment; and in a word, to set themselves 
up above the Church. . . Now all this kind 
of thing, give me* leave to tell you, is an evi- 
dence of a sectarian spirit ; and shows a habit 
of mind to which every sound Catholic instinct 
is abhorrent. 

11. But, (let me add,) — If such doubts and 
inquiries are to be the order of the day, then 
I fear your new friends will have to look out 
for their flocks. Inquiry, in the spirit you 
recommend, (which I altogether deprecate,) 
would introduce into the ranks of Romanism 
hopeless confusion, and a degree of insubordi- 
nation which would make government impos- 
sible, and would imperil the safety of souls ; 
for dissatisfaction and dismay would infallibly 
follow indiscriminate inquiry, in that quarter. 
I pray that such a spectacle as my fancy draws 
may not be witnessed in our own day. But I re- 
peat, — If individuals are to be promiscuously 
asked, " Do you never doubt? How do you 
know you are in the right?" and the like, — 
then confusion would inevitably follow ; and 



70 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

schism would be the result ; and such a breach 
would be witnessed in the Romish Communion 
as never could be healed. " The mind seems 
to reel for years after it has recoiled" from the 
Roman system," says Archdeacon Manning: 
who refers his readers to Southey's Colloquies, 
(vol. ii. pp. 16, 31,) " for the moral effects of 
Romanism in shaking the habit of Faith." 1 

But I am not at all apprehensive of any 
amount of inquiry which you or others may 
be disposed to make here at home. Rather 
does all my apprehension arise from the utter 
absence of real knowledge of the subject which 
I witness around me. May I ask, — Have you 
ever examined Jewel's Controversy with Hard- 
ing ? or that of Andrewes with Bellarmine ? 
Have you studied Laud's Controversy with 
Fisher, and followed the question up until it 
was finally closed by Stillingfleet ? Do you 
know Bishop Bull's Discourses, in answer to 
Bossuet ? or the polemical writings of Bram- 
hall, Ussher, and Barrow ? Have you more 
recently read Palmer's Controversial writings, 
including his Letters to Wiseman, as well as 
Bp. Turton's encounter with the same gentle- 
man ? and Bp. Phillpott's Letters to Butler ? 

1 Archdeacon Manning's Rule of Faith, p. 109. 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 71 

More recently yet, are yon acquainted with Dr. 
Wordsworth's Letters to M. Gondon ? . . . . 
You may sneer : but you will find out, if you 
will inquire, that these men have all silenced 
their adversaries, and remain masters of the 
field. 

And so, when you ask me " what I have to 
go by," and so forth, I, as an individual Eng- 
lishman of very moderate learning, think, that 
besides the authoritative teaching of the Eng- 
lish Church, I may with reason appeal to what 
the most learned Fathers and Confessors of 
that Church have written on the subject of her 
relation to Rome. When I find, in addition to 
the controversial ability of Ussher and Stilling- 
fleet, Laud and Jewel, the learning and piety 
of Andrewes and Hooker, — Taylor and Bull, 
— Bramhall, Cosin and Beveridge, — Pearson, 
Sanderson and Hammond, — Waterland and 
Jackson, and the rest; — I think I may with 
entire safety dedicate my leisure, (which is but 
scant,) and my abilities, (which are not consid- 
erable,) to something better than doubt and 
controversy. Excuse me for saying that when I 
survey this list of names, — ever increasing in 
number and in splendour, — the insolences of 
such an one as yourself appear to me unspeak- 
ably paltry and worthless. What sufficed for 



72 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

them 9 may surely, I say to myself, suffice for me 
also ! 

12. When therefore you talk of " converting 
me," I really must trouble you to consider 
what a preposterous abuse of language you 
are guilty of. From what, and to what do 
you propose to " convert" me ? You wish to 
see me converted from being an Anglo-C&t\\o\\Q, 
to becoming a itomaw-Catholic ! And can such 
an arbitrary transfer of allegiance be con- 
founded with the blessed act of the souFs 
conversion to God ? Have you then so entirely 
forgotten the Scriptural and Catholic teaching 
of the Church of England, as to address me as 
if I were a worshipper of false deities, or ad- 
dicted to heathen rites ? The same Bible with 
yourself, (all but the Apocryphal books) : — 
the same three Creeds which you acknowledge, 
(not, of course, adding thereto the Creed of 
Pope Pius IV.): — the same Litany as your- 
self, (bating the Invocations of Saints): — 
much the same Missal and Breviary, (all but 
the fabulous legends) : — the same Psalter, 
(except that we read it in a language which 
we understand) : — the self-same Collects, (only 
that we have not put them to wrongs, as you 
have) : — the same two Sacraments above all, 
— the same Priesthood, — the same Councils 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 73 

and Fathers which you yourselves acknowl- 
edge ; all, all our own ! Good Heavens, then, 
— what an abuse of terms is this ! that a man 
should be persuaded to uproot himself from 
one part of the Church Catholic, and to plant 
himself down in another ; and flatter himself 
that he has thereby been " converted ; " — the 
Conversion resulting in his being now com- 
pelled, under pain of anathema, to believe in 
the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin 
Mary ! . . . . Why, you must either be mad 
yourself, or you must think me so, to think 
that I can seriously contemplate such a " Con- 
version " as this ! 

13. As for your insinuations about fewness 
of number, (the " little Church of England," 
and so forth,) I counsel you to get up the sta- 
tistics of the question a little more carefully, 
before you so speak. I might indeed invite 
you to remember that when the Ten Tribes 
fell away from the primitive standard, the 
Truth remained with the tribe of Judah ; 
while " of [little] Benjamin he said, The be- 
loved of the Lord shall dwell in safety by him ; 
and the Lord shall cover him all the day long, 
and he shall dwell between his shoulders." x 

1 Deut. xxxiii. 12. 



74 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

But I have no wish to resort to such an argu- 
ment. The Church of England, — whether 
absolutely or relatively considered, — is not 
little. Her numbers are not small. She 
counts her tens of millions even in this 
country. She is stretching out on the right 
hand and on the left, and is ready to 
colonise the globe. Already does the sun 
never set upon her altars. She has already 
extended her Religion, and is destined yet 
more effectually to extend it, over the whole 
World. 

14. But I have not yet replied to all your 
charges. Let me be briefer with those which 
remain. — You ask me how it comes to pass 
that several men of undoubted piety and abil- 
ity and learning have left us ? 

Really, I am not concerned to account for 
the unfaithfulness of these men : but the ar- 
gument which you think may be derived from 
their apostasy is worthless. That a few of the 
Clergy and Laity should have left the Church 
of England, during a period of unusual excite- 
ment, is not at all surprising: neither is it 
strange that these should have been among 
the more earnest of her sons. Such a con- 
tingency was, on the contrary, to have been 
expected. Far more than a full set-off, how- 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 75 

ever, against the supposed importance of the 
unfaithfulness of those few men, is the unwa- 
vering fidelity of the multitude who have re- 
mained behind. 

You appeal with especial satisfaction to the 
names of three or four considerable authors, 
w r ho were once accomplished English Divines. 
I bid you note how, (like Samson on the lap 
of Delilah,) their strength has already " gone 
from them, and they have become weak, and 
like any other men." 2 I request you further 
to tell me why these writers are more to be 
listened to at one stage of their motley history 
than at another? Above all, I desire to be 
informed on what principle their later utter- 
ances are to be considered as entitled to any 
consideration at all ? The question I am now 
asking is of the following nature : — 

A gentleman who became an Archdeacon in 
the Church of England, who had been a fellow 
of his college, and was known to be a man of 
considerable ability and attainment, — (of no 
great power, to be sure ; — I remember we 
used, when I was an undergraduate, to desig- 
nate him as " Newman and water," — ) Arch- 
deacon Manning, I say, in the maturity of his 

1 Judges xvi. 17. 



76 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

powers produced a work on the " Rule of 
Faith," which went through two editions, and 
on which he bestowed considerable labour. 1 
He proved that " the Roman Church, how 
much soever it may appeal in words to An- 
tiquity, does in practice, oppose Antiquity and 
universal Tradition : " (p. 100) " has intro- 
duced new doctrines unknown to the Apostles 
of Christ : " (p. 103) " undermines the foun- 
dation upon which Christianity itself is built ; " 
(p. 104) and so forth. He explained " the 
Catholic Rule of Faith," and proved " that it 
is distinctly recognized by the English and the 
early Church." " We may now go on," (he 
said,) " to consider the following rules, which 
have been in later ages, adopted by the Church ; 
both therefore modern, and condemned as 
novel, by universal tradition : I mean, the rule 
of the Roman Church, and the rule that is held 
by all Protestant bodies, except the British and 
American Churches" (p. 81.) The learned 
writer proceeded " to define the Roman rule 
and to contrast it with the Catholic:" (p. vi., 
referring to p. 82.) elaborately setting forth 



l " The Rule of Faith," &c, by Rev. H. E. Manning, con- 
sisting of a Sermon, (pp. 56,) and an Appendix, (pp. 136,) 
2nd ed. 1839. 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 77 

the Catholic method of the Church of England, 
in opposition to the zm-Catholic method of the 
Church of Rome ; and insisting that " the 
Church of England protests against the Church 
of Rome for departing from the universal tra- 
dition of the Apostles, and for bringing in 
particular traditions, having their origin in an 
equal neglect of Scripture and Antiquity" (p. 
84.) — Now, I ask, how can such a writer ex- 
pect to be listened to when, a few years after, 
he comes forth as the vehement assailant of 
the English Church, and the strenuous advo- 
cate of ultramontane Popery ? Shall I hesi- 
tate to confess that I turn from that picture to 
vdis with the same kind of wonder and amuse- 
ment which I used to experience when a boy 
at witnessing the transformations in a panto- 
mime ? Sublimely forgetful of the past, the 
Orthodox English Archdeacon, who, yester- 
day, proved that the Romish Rule is con- 
demned by " the universal Tradition of the 
Apostles," — to-day, (transformed into aschis- 
matical Romish Archbishop,) is heard ana- 
thematizing the English Church! There 
surely never was more unscrupulous tergiv- 
ersation, more grotesque inconsistency ! The 
man's insolence would make one angry if 
a strong sense of the absurdity of his posi- 



78 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

tion did not outweigh every other consid- 
eration. Once, he was at least respectable. 
What is he now ? 

Again. An energetic parish priest, who 
produced a series of " Discourses on Roman- 
ism and Dissent " which went through several 
editions, declared, as the result of his study 
of the question, " that the real fact of the case 
is this; — that out of eighteen centuries, dur- 
ing which the Church of England has existed, 
somevihat less than four centuries and a half 
were passed under the usurped domination of 
the see of Rome : so great is the absurdity, and 
palpable ignorance of historical facts, evinced 
by those who represent the Church of England 
as a separating branch from the Romish com- 
munion. Let it be remembered, that all which 
the Reformers of our Church aimed at, and 
which they so happily accomplished, was to 
bring back the Church of England to the same 
state of purity which it enjoyed previous to the 
imposition of the Papal yoke. They put forth no 
new doctrines ; they only divested the old ones 
of the corruptions which had been fastened on 
them. In all essential points, — in Doctrine, 
in the Sacraments, in the unbroken succession 
of ministers, — the Church of England is at 
this day the same which it was in primitive 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 79 

times" 1 — The same judicious writer further 
defines the " gulph between us and the Roman 
Church, which " (says he) " we can never 
pass (!) and which the members of that cor- 
rupt Communion can only pass by giving up 
all that is peculiar to their own creed .... 
We can have no fellowship," (he says) " with 
those who practically exalt the Yirgin Mary, 
(who, though ever blessed, was a creature, by 
nature corrupt and sinful as ourselves,) to a 
coequality with Christ, as the ground of their 
dependance and trust. We can have no com- 
munion with those who assign to the traditions 
of men the same authority with the inspired 
Word of God, and who corrupt and overthrow 
the nature of the Sacraments." 2 " The king- 
dom of England," (he proceeds,) " is not in 
the diocese of the Bishop of Rome, nor yet in 
the patriarchate of Rome When, there- 
fore, the Church of Rome charges us with 
breaking the unity of the body of Christ, our 
reply is, that no such unity as she contends for 
was known in Apostolic or Primitive times. 
Let her cease from her attempts to tyrannise 
over other bishoprics not her own ; let her 
cleanse herself from corruptions ; let her re- 

1 Disc. viii. pp. 8-9. 2 Ibid. pp. 4-5. 



80 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

vive sound and Apostolic doctrines ; give the 
sacraments to her people in their simplicity 
and purity ; and cancel the decrees of the 
schismatical Council of Trent ; — and we will 
joyfully reunite with her, in the same sense 
that the Church of Corinth was united to the 
Church of Jerusalem." As for " the charge 
brought against the Church of England, that 
she herself has set the example of schism to 
the Dissenters, by her own separation from the 
Church of Rome, — common as the notion is 
in our day that our Church did so separate, — 
there never was a more groundless notion, or 
one more contrary to fact. The Church of 
England never separated from the Church of 
Rome, or from any other Church. When she 
sank under the usurpation and corrupting in- 
fluence of the Church of Rome, she did not 
thereby lose her own existence ; neither did 
she forfeit her right to release herself from 
that cruel bondage, when God put it into the 
hearts of his servants to attempt it, and ena- 
bled them to succeed in the attempt." 1 

Now will you pretend to tell me that when 
the selfsame individual who wrote these words 



1 Dodsworth, On Romanism and Dissent. Disc. i. pp. 
16-18. 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 81 

changes his religion, (as a man would change 
his coat,) and is heard flatly to deny what yes- 
terday he had logically established, — his sec- 
ond opinion is to outweigh his first ; or rather, 
to cause that we should overlook it altogether ? 
It were easy to multiply illustrations ad 
nauseam,, and to show what a miserably weak 
and foolish figure our own writers cut, when 
having been " once enlightened, and having 
tasted of the heavenly gift, and been made 
partakers of the Holy Ghost, and tasted the 
good Word of God, and the powers of the 
world to come," * they thus fall away. The 
Rev. T. W. Allies, in 1846, wrote 204 pages, 
the gist of which was sufficiently expressed by 
their title, — " The Church of England cleared 
from the charge of Schism" In 1854, the 
same gentleman altered his mind, — discovered 
that " the see of St. Peter " is " the Rock of 
the Church, the source of jurisdiction, and the 
centre of unity ;" recanted all his former pro- 
fessions ; reversed all his solid proofs ; and in 
short, apostatised! The " Lecturer on the 
Philosophy of History in the Catholic Univer- 
sity" (wherever and whatever that precious 
institution may happen to be !), — for by this 



1 Hebr. vi. 4, 5. 
6 



82 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

new title the late " Rector of Launton and 
Examining Chaplain to the Bishop of London " 
now designates himself, — T. W. Allies, M.A., 
in 1854, writes 203 pages, to quite the oppo- 
site tune ; winding-up his labours with this 
kind of thing: — " Whither then shall I turn, 
but to thee, glorious Roman Church, &c, 
&c. Thine alone are the Keys of Peter, and 
the sharp sword of Paul " . . . . Can any one 
forbear a contemptuous smile when he glances 
from the reasoning of Mr. Allies in 1846, to 
the bombast of Mr. Allies in 1854 ? . . . Take 
one more example. 

" If we are induced " (says Mr. Newman,) 
" to believe the professions of Rome, and make 
advances towards her as if a sister or a mother 
Church, which in theory she is, we shall find 
too late that we are in the arms of a pitiless 
and unnatural relative, who ivill but triumph 
in the arts which have inveigled us within her 
reach. . . . Let us be sure that she is our 
enemy, and will do us a mischief when she 
can. . . . We need not depart from Christian 
charity towards her. We must deal with her 
as we would towards a friend who is visited by 
derangement ; in great affliction, with all affec- 
tionate tender thoughts, with tearful regret 
and a broken heart, but still with a steady 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 83 

eye and a firm hand. For in truth she is 
a Church beside herself, abounding in noble 
gifts and rightful titles, but unable to use 
them religiously ; crafty, obstinate, wilful, mali- 
cious, cruel, unnatural, as madmen are. Or 
rather she may be said to resemble a De- 
moniac. . . . Thus she is her real self only 
in name ; and, till God vouchsafe to restore 
her, we must treat her as if she were that Evil 
One which governs her." So wrote the Rev. 
J. H. Newman in 1838. Four or five years 
after, he was " inveigled " into the arms of this 
same " pitiless and unnatural relation." He 
submitted himself to this " deranged " Church. 
He enlisted his splendid abilities under that 
banner where "noble gifts" are not "used 
religiously." He received a second Baptism, 
and fresh Orders from this (so-called) " De- 
moniac." To that Church which " the Evil 
One governs," — (a terrible sentiment surely 
to utter or to subscribe to !) — he entirely 
submitted himself. . . . Heaven forgive him! 
Heaven help and guide us all in the exercise 
of our powers, — be they considerable, or be 
they very slender ! . . . But will you pretend 
to mention such conduct with any self-con- 
gratulation ? It seems to me, that the less 
said about such acts, the better ! He who 



84 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

being bred in ignorance, (whatever the Church 
of his profession,) on due inquiry changes 
sides, — is at least entitled to a hearing. But 
he who is first, on deliberate conviction, a 
powerful controversialist on the side of the 
Church of England, — and then, a far more 
vehement (but not nearly so powerful) com- 
batant on the other ; this man, I cannot think 
is entitled to any hearing at all. 

To confess the truth, instead of feeling that 
the apostasy of certain literary Priests of the 
English Communion makes against that Com- 
munion, I can view their act only in reference 
to themselves. Next to astonishment at their 
infatuation, a sense of the absurdity of their 
actual position, overcomes me. It is too late 
for them now to rail against the Church of 
their Fathers. They have demonstrated its 
purity and its primitiveness, long since ! It is 
worse than absurd for them now to vaunt the 
Romish claims. They have long ago disproved 
them ! In an unguarded hour, they wrote a 
book. Happily, " litera scripta manet," — at- 
que in aeternum manebit. 

Then, as for the gifts and graces of these 
men, — their zeal and earnestness, — their 
self-denial and learning, — what need to point 
out that every one of these are of English, 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 85 

not Roman growth ! Nay, Rome has proved 
herself incapable of maintaining in their purity, 
the spirits which spontaneously have joined 
her ranks. For, one and all, these men are 
found to have become demoralised and de- 
based by their new connection. They may 
say what they will, moreover ; but I am thor- 
oughly convinced that they are not happy 
where they are. They may be as vehement 
in their protestations as they please ; but the 
more learned among them have long since 
repented the step they have taken. They have 
discovered that they have lost something which 
they could not afford to part with, as well as 
gained something which they used to think 
they could not live without. But, in the mean- 
time, the exchange has not proved the kind of 
thing they expected. The gain, they find out, 
is by no means unmixed ; while the practical 
deformities of Romanism become daily more 
and more painfully apparent. At best they 
have but exchanged the difficulties of one sys- 
tem for the difficulties of another. Moreover, 
there has been sorrow inflicted, and confidence 
outraged, and precious ties severed ; and, what 
is more, grand opportunities have been lost 
for ever, and doubt has been sown broadcast 
in a thousand quarters, and sacred pledges 



86 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

have been violated, and solemn trusts have 
been broken, and Ordination vows have been 
scattered to the winds. 

You are evidently struck by the strangeness 
of seeing our Anglican Communion forsaken 
by such men : but stranger sights will be wit- 
nessed " in the last days," let me remind 
you, — far stranger spectacles than we and 
our Fathers have hitherto witnessed. Our 
Lord declares that " there shall arise false 
Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great 
signs and wonders ; insomuch that, if it were 
possible, they shall deceive the very elect" l I 
am sorry for what has happened, very. The 
recollection of it will darken and embitter what 
remains of life. But after this plain prophecy 
of the Incarnate Word, it does not, — how 
can it ? — surprise me. 

15. Another of your charges against the 
Church of England is that " it has not pro- 
duced considerable Saints." — How, (I should 
like to be informed,) do you know that ? 

If you ask me to name a set of men equal 
to Fran§ois de Sales, Vincent de Paul, and so 
on, I really think I shall find no difficulty at 
all in doing so. The Annals of the English 

St. Matt. xxiv. 24. 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 87 

Church supply us with as bright a galaxy of 
names as are to be found in any sky. But 
I prefer making a different, and (as I think) a 
fairer answer. I would rather remind you 
that to every Church must be allowed its own 
proper praise ; for that every Church has its 
own proper glory. It is conceivable that the 
result of the teaching of the Romish Church 
may be to produce exceptional cases of quite 
extraordinary personal sanctity, occasional acts 
of altogether heroic devotion ; while the great 
bulk of the population shall be grossly vicious 
and immoral, and the ranks of its very Clergy, 
largely infected by the poisonous taint. On 
the other hand, while our Bishop Wilsons at 
home, and our Henry Martyns abroad, are 
few, it seems to me that the result of our 
Church's teaching is to produce a far higher 
average standard of morality. Permit me, 
for my own part, to declare that I conceive 
our own to be herein the higher felicity : our 
own, the greater glory. Our domestic life is 
more pure : our homes are more sacred : our 
national truthfulness is far higher, than that 
in any country of the Romish obedience. I 
believe there is a larger amount of average 
goodness, far greater general piety, here, than 
anywhere else in the world It shall 



88 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

suffice to have indicated thus much. What 
need to remark however that all this is nothing' 
at all to the point ? Suppose the Church of 
England could be proved not to have bred so 
many great Saints as the Church of Rome ; 
what then ? 

16. You complain further that we are desti- 
tute of Books of Devotion, and have got no 
good Commentaries. One of these charges, 
if you please, at a time. 

Pray have you ever taken the trouble to 
inquire how many books of Devotion the Eng- 
lish Church actually possesses ? Have you 
had recourse to Andrewes, and Taylor, and 
Cosin, and Laud, and Leighton, and Sutton, 
and Patrick, and Spinckes, and Ken, and Bev- 
eridge, and Wilson, and Hele, and Keble, and 
Williams, — and found them all insufficient ? 

Permit me however to say that I decline 
following your lead any further in this direc- 
tion. You are assuming that the best Church 
must be that which provides the best devo- 
tional Manuals for her children; — a position 
which I altogether deny. (Nay, you are im- 
plying that a man's duty will be to unite 
himself to that branch of the Church which 
boasts itself most rich in this department of 
sacred literature.) I, on the contrary, am 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 89 

bold to assert that that Church is most faithful 
which most encourages her children to make 
the pure Word of God their habitual strength, 
and help, and consolation. The English Prayer- 
Book is the Englishman's habitual Book of 
Devotions : and the Psalms of David he pre- 
fers, — with the Saints of all ages, — to all 
the paltry " little gardens of lilies," and " little 
gardens of roses," and " little Paradises of 
dainty devices," in the world. 

You will please to take notice, therefore, 
that I repel your charge against the English 
Church, (that she is destitute of Devotional 
Manuals,) with indignation, on every ground. 
As a matter of fact, we have a vast number 
of such works. As a matter of taste, I prefer 
the honest homely flavour of the worst of 
ours, to the very best of yours ; so mawkish 
and unreal in their tone, — so unscriptural 
and unsound in their teaching, — so alien and 
strange in their manner, — so sectarian and 
un- Catholic in their whole method and ten- 
dency ! — But the chief point to which I invite 
your attention is, that we have human helps 
the fewer, because we have Divine helps the 
more ! We habitually resort to, — the Bible : 
your people, (the lay sort, I mean,) read, — a 
vast amount of religious trash When a 



90 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

devout Anglican wants spiritual entertainment, 
his obvious resource is to turn to the Gospel 
of Jesus Christ. He would rather hear one 
of those four blessed Saints discourse to him 
concerning his Saviour's acts or sayings, than 
read any merely human book of cogitations. 
Next to the Gospel, he loves the Psalter. If 
he is very sad, the book of Job, or the peni- 
tential Psalms, are quite sad enough for him ! 
He seldom seems to want anything more, for 
devotional purposes, than the Bible, or the 
Book of Common-Prayer, supplies. 

But if he does, (and this reminds me of the 
other charge you bring against us,) one of Bp. 
Andrewes', or one of Dr. Mill's, or one of the 
late Charles Marriott's sermons, gives him 
plenty to think about, — if he happens to feel 
as I do. (But every man to his own special 
taste, in this matter !) You complain that we 
have but few Commentaries. There is no de- 
nying it. (Your new friends, let me tell you, 
have not got many good ones, either !) But 
instead of reckoning up those we have, I will 
take the liberty of saying that England's true 
exegetical strength is to be sought and found 
in the Sermons and Treatises of her greatest 
Divines , — in the writings of Pearson, Bull, 
Sanderson, Cosin, Andrewes, Waterland, anc 1 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 91 

so on. A man will find that he understands 
the texts which relate to Holy Baptism in- 
finitely better by reading Wall's celebrated 
treatise, or that of Bp. Bethell, than by dip- 
ping into any number of Commentaries. Mill's 
five Sermons on the Temptation are better 
than any system of Notes on that portion of 
the Gospel. Bp. Sanderson understood the 
mind of S. Paul far better, I apprehend, than 
Estius. But I must absolutely turn away from 
the train of thought thus opening to me. I 
pass on, with one remark, which I earnestly 
recommend to your attention ; or rather, to 
the attention of those who are likely to be 
seduced by your bad example, and to fall into 
the common cant of depreciating the stores of 
English Divinity : — namely, that before gen- 
tlemen of a Romanizing tendency make up 
their minds that they must seek for help at 
the hands of writers of the Romish Commun- 
ion ; or before another, equally undutiful, class 
of spirits resort to Germany for help ; it would 
be well if both would take the trouble to ascer- 
tain what their oivn language and literature 
supplies, of purely English growth. How 
many excellent writers there are, (as Frank, 
Jackson, Horbery, Townson, and others) who, 
(certainly for no fault of theirs,) experience 



92 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

systematic neglect at the hands of English- 
men ; — the very Englishmen who yet pretend 
to be familiar with Continental Divinity ! Many 
a man, believe me, has lost his way with the 
Germans, or been misled by writers of the 
Romish school, who never read a line of Bev- 
eridge, or Bramhall, or Bull. But I must 
absolutely pass on. 

17. Your complaint that our Churches are 
"never open, whereas Romish Churches are 
never shut," — is just another of those utterly 
irrelevant matters, as well as very incorrect 
statements, which I am surprised to see you so 
confidently urge. The Roman Basilicas are 
always open indeed, — just as the English Ca- 
thedrals are : but the same can be said of no 
other Churches in Rome. Prom 12 o'clock 
till 2 or 4 p.m. all Churches are closed : while 
there are scores of Churches at Rome which 
are shut all the week. You have to send for 
the key, — just as in London: while, to some 
of the Churches you will find it impossible to 
obtain access at all. I remember trying in 
vain to discover where the key of S. Saba is 
kept. Many of those lesser Churches, (though 
very curious,) are not opened from one end of 
the year to the other : or Divine Service is cele- 
brated in them once a-year. 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 93 

But, — let me ask, — what has all this to do 
with the question ? The methods of the two 
Churches are wholly different. Our practice 
of Family- worship, together with the superior 
conveniences we enjoy for private devotion in 
our dwelling-houses, explains partly why our 
Churches are not so systematically kept open 
as the Churches at Rome. The difference of 
our public Service from theirs, (a subject on 
which some details will be found at the end of 
the present volume,) 1 further helps to account 
for it. There may be a difference in our social 
instincts, and general traditions. Lastly, I 
freely confess that it is to be wished our 
Churches were more generally open than they 
actually are. But yet, — when all has been 
said, — I see not what it can be thought to 
have to do with the question before us ; which 
is, — whether I am bound to transfer my alle- 
giance from the Church of England to the 
Church of Rome ? This is the only question 
between you and me ! 

18. Your remarks are, (many of them,) 
purely sentimental. I expect, at every in- 
stant, that you are going to say something 
next about the climate of Italy ; or to urge, by 

1 Appendix D. 



94 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

way of argument, the sweet Vespers of the 
little nuns at the Trinita di Monte ! I am sure 
if the facts were reversed about the popular 
style of Architecture of the two countries, 
(Italy and England,) we should have had a 
paragraph about that too ! What a pity that 
stained-glass windows, the glory of our Eng- 
lish Cathedrals, should be unknown in Rome ! 
Come, — (for you really do provoke me !) — 
let me say a few words to you on this head. 
We are in Rome. Let us look about us. It 
must be freely granted that many of the 
Churches of this famous city are of exceeding 
magnificence. A man had need to be devoid 
of real taste and a large appreciation of beauty, 
who can fail to acknowledge it. Mr. Pugin, I 
am aware, left the place in disgust at its eccle- 
siastical Architecture : but it was because he 
could admire nothing that is not Gothic. 
Now, it is the simple fact that there is not one 
single Gothic Church in Rome. There are 
some Saracenic or Moorish outlines in two of 
the Churches, — (the Minerva, and a little 
church of which I forget the name, built by 
one who has apostatised from our commun- 
ion ;) — but of Gothic, in the English sense 
of the word, there is not a single specimen. 
The Churches (as you see /) are all of the de- 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 95 

based Roman style, — like our own London 
City Churches ; for which, by the way, it is 
clear that they afforded the miserable prece- 
dent. 

Splendid they are indeed : but then it de- 
tracts somewhat from my admiration for the 
zeal which has been at work here, to find that 
the costliest ornaments of all, (the granite col- 
umns, the precious marbles, the lapis lazuli, 
verdo antico, and porphyry,) have been simply 
transferred from a Pagan to a Christian use, 
— having been found long since by these peo- 
ple, ready made to their hand, and requiring 
only to be appropriated. 

Nay, do you not perceive that not only 
heathen traditions remain, (witness the ex- 
voto offerings which so often encumber these 
walls!), but that the cold shade of heathen 
Art broods strangely over this Christian me- 
tropolis ? How has it impressed its influence 
on everything we see ! These cold classical 
outlines, — that debased style, — yonder pedi- 
ment supported on a pair of columns in every 
side-chapel, — how lifeless it all is as an ex- 
pression of Christian Art ! And it is not 
ancient either. It is the production of only 
yesterday, after all, — the fashion of the pres- 
ent day ; a fashion which is still going on. 



96 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

This indeed is a feature which strikes us more 
and more forcibly as we continue our survey : 
namely, the intense modernness of the churches 
at Rome. Their sites indeed are truly venera- 
ble ; of even extraordinary antiquity : and 
several of the objects they contain (though 
sadly cooked) are very ancient also ; but the 
actual structures are far more modern than is 
commonly considered, or would perhaps be be- 
lieved. Let us open Murray's handbook at 
random: — " San Sabastiano. . . . The foun- 
dation of this basilica is attributed to Constaji- 
tine, but the present edifice is not older than 
1611 when it was entirely rebuilt," &c. — "S. 
Sabina was built in the form of a basilica in 
423 by Peter, an Illyrian priest, as we learn by 
a mosaic inscription over the door ; but Sixtus 
V. in 1587 reduced it to its present form." — 
" S. Maria Maggiore was founded a.d. 352 
by Pope Liberius, and enlarged in 432 by Six- 
tus III. on its present plan. The whole build- 
ing was repaired by Gregory XIII. in 1575, 
and the principal facade was added in 1741 by 
Benedict XIV., when the interior was com- 
pletely renovated, and the building generally 
reduced to the state in which we now see it" — 
" The old basilica of S. Giovanni in Later ano 
was nearly destroyed by fire in the pontificate 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 97 

of Clement V., but it was restored by that 
Pope. In 1644, Borromini loaded the nave 
with ornaments, &c, and Clement XII. com- 
pleted the work of renovation in 1734 by add- 
ing the principal fagade," &c. — Constantine 
the Great founded the basilica of St. Peter's in 
306. In 1506 was laid the foundation of the 
present structure : of which, however, the nave 
was not completed until 1612, nor the facade 
till 1614, nor the colonnade till 1667! . . . 
There is no need to multiply instances. Min- 
gled with so many ancient temples, and con- 
taining relics of every age since the epoch of 
the Emperors, the Churches of Rome are, for 
the most part, structures which have been 
modernised and reduced to their present ap- 
pearance during the last and the preceding cen- 
tury. Nay, — painful and perplexing to relate, 
— the work of cooking is going on to the pres- 
ent hour ; and that, to an extent which renders 
the greatest watchfulness necessary. A friend, 
with whom I visited the Basilica of St. John 
Lateran, assured me that the " Confessional," 
(as the underground shrine under the high 
altar is called,) did not exist, when he visited 
the spot ten years ago ! 

And then, how irrelevant as well as how 
untrue is all you say about the comparative 

7 



98 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

devoutness of the people ! You seem to imply- 
that reverence is to be found only among 
Romanists ; irreverence only among Angli- 
cans. Where can you have been living, and 
what must your powers of accurate obser- 
vation be ? Do you mean to tell me that a 
Roman Catholic Church during the time of 
public prayer is as devotional and reverential 
a spectacle as an English Church ? Will you 
tell me too that either the highest, or the low- 
est ranks, exhibit the externals of devotion 
more strikingly in Italy than in England ? 
And pray, are we to be so besotted as to iden- 
tify intensity of devotion with purity of Faith ? 
Who more devout than a good Turk ? 

But I deny your position entirely. I will 
not track the worshippers into private life, or 
inquire how they conduct themselves there; 
and so, set off the " pure religion and unde- 
filed" of the one, against the oth$r. I will 
confine myself to the Sanctuary ; and I boldly 
insist that, as a matter of fact, there is more 
reverence, on the whole, among our own peo- 
ple, than among your new friends. — You 
must not ask me, Why then is no one ever 
seen in the corner of an English Church on 
week-days, &c. ? I reply, — You have to con- 
sider the difference of the two systems. We 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 99 

promise no Indulgences applicable to souls 
in Purgatory, for slender religious exercises ! 
I make little doubt that if we did ; if, for ex- 
ample, there were a statue of the Blessed 
Virgin in the church of the village in which I 
write ; and if beneath it there were an inscrip- 
tion stating that the Archbishop of Canter- 
bury, (I really beg his Grace's pardon for so 
wild a supposition,) granted in perpetuity a 
hundred days of indulgence to every one who 
once a day devoutly kissed its foot, and recited 
a single "Ave Maria," — (as in the instance 
specified at) ; 1 — if this were the English 
method, I say, I make no doubt that the same 
interesting spectacles would be witnessed here, 
as in Italy. But would not that be to buy 
such treats at somewhat too dear a rate ? 

19. Lastly, you are eloquent about the dis- 
turbances at St. George's-in-the-East, — the 
number of sects in England, — the intense 
worldliness of a great commercial country 
like ours, — and so forth. I cannot prevent 



1 In the Church of S. Agostino, at Rome, under the 
image of "Maria santissima del Parto," you read, — "NT. S. 
Pio PP VII concede in perpetuo 100 giorni d' indulge nza 
da lucrarsi una volta il giorno da tutti quelli che divota- 
menta baceranno il piede di questa immagine, recitando un 
Ave Maria per li bisogni di S. Chiesa, 7 Giug. 1822." 



100 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

you from thus mixing up the discussion of 
things which are purely irrelevant, if you are 
determined to do so. I can but say that all 
such considerations are simply beside the 
question ; and that I am not prepared to be 
the apologist of these, or of any other blem- 
ishes or shortcomings or sins of our people. 
Nay, I quite grieve to think how divided we 
are ; how far we fall short of the Gospel stand- 
ard. But what then ? There is, (whatever 
you may be pleased to insinuate,) a vast 
amount of real practical piety among our 
great Merchants and Traders, and a very mu- 
nificent religious spirit at work also, here and 
there ; although it may be that London, and 
our great commercial towns generally, are 
deplorably secularised. Let me ask, however, 
— Has as much been done for them hitherto 
as might easily have been done ? and, (excuse 
me for adding ! ) do you not think that you 
would have been much better employed, had 
you stayed at home, in trying to diminish the 
evil complained of, than in going over to the 
enemy, in order to insult us ? — Besides, many 
of the sects, misguided as we know them to 
be, yet hold a vast amount of saving Truth ; 
are in earnest, we hope, about the matter of 
their salvation, and therefore are in a better 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 101 

way than practical unbelievers. As for the 
late scandalous disturbances at St. George's- 
in-the-East, you should be aware that such 
disgraceful outrages are not without precedent 
in the very best times of Church history. It 
was the mob, — the mere rabble-rout of the 
metropolis, — who were the offenders on the 
late occasion ; miscreants who rejoiced in any 
excuse for dishonouring the House of God, — 
any opportunity of disturbing the worship of 
the Almighty. It was not the parishioners of 
St. George' s-in-the-Bast who reproduced those 
scenes, worthy of Constantinople or Alexan- 
dria in the fifth century. Who sees not, more- 
over, that an incumbent with two grains of 
common sense might have prevented the whole 
scandal ? . . . But, I must again and again 
repeat, all such matters do not touch the ques- 
tion before us ; no, not the least in the world. 
I should be grieved indeed to see " toleration," 
(in our popular and practical sense of the 
word,) established in Italy. But suppose the 
principle once recognised : and — how many 
" St. George's-in-the-East " do you imagine 
would be witnessed there ? 

20. It may not be uninteresting or useless, 
to some persons at least, that even so humble 
a hand as mine should venture to trace out 



102 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

certain very unfavourable conditions, under 
which nevertheless any independent Church 
might safely hope to maintain a healthy exist- 
ence. 1 draw the portrait as follows, — per- 
fectly conscious that the result will not be 
very attractive : but taking leave to remark 
that an attractive portrait, is not the thing 
which it was proposed to draw. 

If a Church be but constituted on the Apos- 
tolic model, — namely, with three Orders of 
lawful Ministers : — If the pure Word of God 
be but " preached, and the Sacraments duly 
ministered, according to Christ's ordinance, in 
all those things that of necessity are requisite 
to the same : " 1 (what need to declare that 
the Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the 
lay-people ?) — If the Bible be but freely read, 
and the three Creeds faithfully maintained by 
the Church : — If there be but set forms of 
Prayer ; (what need to say that public Prayer 
in the Church must be in a known tongue ?) 

— If no new dogmas are added to the Faith 
(a7ta%) " once for all delivered to the Saints : " 

— If truly Catholic observances be but re- 
tained ; and if care be but taken that in all Rites 
and Ceremonies of the Church which are of 

1 Art. xix. 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 103 

purely human authority, all things be done to 
edifying: — If, lastly, in all cases of doubt or 
difficulty, the appeal be but invariably made first 
to Scripture, then to primitive Antiquity : — 
If all this, I say, may but be predicated of any 
Church, — then, no one of its members can 
pretend to doubt of his safety in that Church ; 
or, on the contrary, presume to quit it, without 
endangering his own Salvation. 

It would be idle to object to such a Church 
that its shrines are not open all the week, or 
that the State oppresses it : that some of its 
Ministers, (or of its lay-members,) are un- 
worthy, or unlearned, or at logger-heads, or 
unsound in Doctrine : that some of its teach- 
ers deny Baptismal Regeneration, and disclaim 
or repudiate Apostolical Succession : that Her- 
esy is winked at, and immorality not quite un- 
known : that Discipline is slack, and good 
books of Devotion scarce : that Lent and 
Easter are badly kept, and the Saints-Days 
generally neglected : that great irreverence 
prevails, and not a little unbelief: that there 
are as serious divisions among its members, 
and as many party names, as when St. Paul 
had done preaching at Corinth : that great 
Saints are very uncommon, and real Martyrs 
rarer still : that its Ritual is not very ornate, 



104 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

and that the people would not like it if it 
were: that most populous towns are practi- 
cally in a very heathen state, and that scenes 
of outbreak and disorder are a great scandal. 
Charges of this kind against such a Church as 
I have been describing, would be frivolous and 
beside the mark. — (One might, to be sure, 
make reprisals ; and draw up such a parallel 
catalogue of supposed or real blemishes in 
your own adopted Communion, as would drive 
you mad. But I spare you. Let me advise 
you, however, not to provoke one who has been 
an attentive observer of the practical working 
of the Romish system, to become the aggres- 
sor ; for verily, in such case, you will find it 
impossible to hold your own ! ) — All this kind 
of thing, I repeat, multiplied a hundred-fold, 
is all as irrelevant to the matter in hand ; just 
as little affects the life of the question, — as 
the expression on my friend's face, or the rent 
in his clothes, or the mud upon his boots, or 
the amount of business he has on his hands, 
or the going of his watch, or his being hot and 
weary, or his having a detestable wife living 
somewhere in Westminster, (not that he or I 
at all desire a divorce, remember /), or the way 
he is forced to wear his hat, — affects the life 
of the man .... It is absurd to mix up 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 105 

points so purely irrelevant, with the real, — 
the only real and vital question ! 

You will perceive, (I desire to write without 
levity,) that your correspondent is prepared 
for much graver troubles falling on the Church 
of England than she has hitherto experienced, 
without yet feeling the least anxiety concern- 
ing her life, and therefore concerning his own 
position. She may see (God forbid !) her Lit- 
urgy disfigured, and her rightful temporal in- 
heritance taken from her. Her enemies, (under 
the name of a " Society for the Liberation of 
Religion from State Patronage and Control," 1 ) 
may succeed in bringing her very low. She 
may be forbidden — (it would not be the first 
time it had happened !) — the very use of her 
Liturgy. She may see her decisions reversed 
by the Temporal power, and her Doctrines 
practically set aside. (I am not for an instant 
meaning that these things are coming upon 
her : but I say they are, one and all, conceiv- 
able.) Heresies may arise among us, which 
will rend the very Church asunder. It may 
become the fashion of our Clergy to imitate 
the " Reverend " (but dishonest) authors of 



1 See Archd. Hale's recent pamphlet. Rivingtons. 
(1861.) 



106 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

" Essays and Reviews," and to present to the 
world the immoral spectacle of Ministers of 
Religion professing one thing, — but, in real- 
ity, teaching and believing quite another. All 
this and more is conceivable. But it would 
not destroy the life of the Church ; much less 
would it make it the duty of a member of the 
Church of England, to become a member of 
the Church of Rome. The truly loyal heart 
and dutiful spirit, the man with ever so little 
of Christian chivalry in his composition, would 
feel it impossible , in days dark as I have been 
imagining, to forsake the Communion of his 
Fathers. Suppose him a man of loftiest parts 
and of most admirable genius, — of truly 
primitive piety and of real learning ; — what 
would be his resource ? He would do as 
Richard Hooker did, when he put forth his 
Books " Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity;" 
and so, depart in peace. I can never read the 
magnificent opening words of Hooker's pre- 
face, (addressed " To them that seek (as they 
term it) the reformation of laws and orders 
Ecclesiastical, in the Church of England,") 
without feeling my heart beat faster, and my 
whole spirit stirred with unutterable sympa- 
thy: — "Though for no other cause, yet for 
this ; that posterity may know we have not 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 107 

loosely through silence permitted things to 
pass away as in a dream, there shall be for 
men's information extant thus much concern- 
ing the present state of the Church of God 
established amongst us ; and their careful en- 
deavour which would have upheld the same." 
.... He would do as Bishop Butler did, 
when he observed as follows: — " It is come, 
I know not how, to be taken for granted, by 
many persons, that Christianity is not so much 
as a subject of inquiry ; but that it is, now at 
length discovered to be fictitious. And ac- 
cordingly, they treat it as if, in the present 
age, this were an agreed point among all per- 
sons of discernment ; and nothing remained 
but to set it up as a principal subject of mirth 
and ridicule, as it were by way of reprisals for 
its having so long interrupted the pleasures of 
the world." 2 Seeing this, Bishop Butler pro- 
duced his immortal " Analogy." .... In some 
such way, I repeat, every loyal heart, accord- 
ing to his opportunities, would certainly act. 
The last thought which would ever occur to a 
noble spirit would be to turn round and become 
a Romanist. 

21. It is quite idle therefore for you to tell 

1 Advertisement to the Analogy, 1736. 



108 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

me that " one of the most striking points of 
contrast between the Church of England and. 
the primitive Church, is that every shade of 
unsound doctrine ma}' be held within the for- 
mer, and treated as a harmless speculation." 
For first, it is not true that " every shade of 
unsound doctrine " may be held without re- 
buke. Romanizers on the one hand, Essayists 
and Reviewers on the other, are not tolerated. 
You have lately seen the indignation of the 
whole English Church aroused by a single 
volume, and finding authoritative expression 
through the entire Bench of Bishops and both 
Houses of Convocation ; while a hundred in- 
dividuals have come forward to refute the er- 
roneous doctrines, and by no means harmless 
speculations, of certain false brethren ; and in 
the boldest and most unequivocal language, to 
denounce them. Secondly, it is not true that 
the primitive Church knew nothing of such 
scandals : although it is perfectly evident that 
you know next to nothing of the primitive 
Church. . 

Considerable diversity of opinion, I freely 
admit, prevails within our Communion. A 
considerable latitude is allowed, even to the 
Ministers of Religion. But let me advise you 
not to be too saucy on this subject. For I 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 109 

shall be constrained to remind you that out- 
ward uniformity may be purchased at too dear 
a rate. An unlearned Clergy, a superstitious 
people, and a country under a spiritual thral- 
dom, — these are widely dissimilar conditions 
from those under which we exist. You are to 
consider that in periods of transition, and in 
an age of great mental activity, and in a coun- 
try where the freest discussion is allowed, and 
where the Bible is in the hands of all, — we 
must expect much in the practical working of 
the Church, to distress and to sadden. The 
questions to be asked by a fair observer are 
such as the following : — Is the course of 
things upwards, or downwards ? Does Heresy 
go unrebuked ? What is the prevailing tone 
of the Divinity which is issued weekly from 
the press ? What are the counterbalancing 
advantages of the system under which we in 
England live ? Are there no indications of 
immense activity and earnestness among our 
people ? Above all, — What is the authoritor 
tive teaching of our Church on the several 
subjects in dispute ? 

22. And so, with respect to our Liturgy, 
which you are so rash as to bring into the 
question. " All parties," (you say,) " wish to 
see it altered." This I deny altogether. True 



110 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

it is that many object to a few expressions, in 
the Burial service, — and many, to a clause in 
the Athanasian Creed. Some think the Table 
of Lessons capable of improvement, and others 
desire that the Services might be shortened. 
Yet more wish, (not unreasonably,) for a sec- 
ond Evening Service. But we may hope that 
men will generally see the danger of uniting 
for the redress of their several supposed griev- 
ances ; as we believe that generally they are 
content with the Prayer-Book as it is. On this, 
at least, I insist emphatically, — that the sev- 
eral " small peculiar " wishes of individuals 
are not to be spoken of, in the lump, as a na- 
tional desire for a revision of the Liturgy. An 
aged friend of mine, (his name would com- 
mand respect if I were to mention it,) pro- 
posed to confide to me, many years ago, a 
scruple he had in the use of the Liturgy. 
I was all attention. "That expression, — 
' Changes and chances of this mortal life,' 
troubles me," said he. (You can imagine the 
reason why.) .... In the meantime, suffer me 
to remind you that it is better to have a Liturgy 
which many find fault with, than to have no 
Liturgy at all. For, (as I have elsewhere 1 

1 Appendix E. 



ROME AND ENGLAND. Ill 

fully shown,) your own adopted communion 
has practically parted with her ancient inherit- 
ance, and is ivithout a Prayer-Book ! 

23. I quite feel the fun and smartness of 
your satire on men of " moderate views." 
You are, doubtless, right in supposing that 
the most saintly mediaeval Bishops on record 
would not have looked about for such men to 
work within their dioceses. But pray be fair. 
To every age its own appropriate praise. And 
even you w T ill not pretend that any objection is 
entertained in England to a man however 
immoderately g-ood and earnest, — however im- 
moderately self-denying and laborious he may 
be. No. What we all hate is a reverend cox- 
comb, — whose religion displays itself, first, 
in the style of his millinery; next, in the 
warmth of his Romish sympathies. Then 
comes an ultra-montane system of teaching, 
and a half-emptied Church. Last of all the rev- 
erend gentleman probably carries his strangely- 
cut coat, and empty head over to the Church 
of Rome. Such is the kind of individual, be 
it remarked in passing, who has brought Rit- 
ualism itself into disrepute, and caused that 
" men of moderate views " should be inquired 
after. The phrase (be assured) does but 
denote persons who are not likely to make 



112 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

immoderate fools of themselves : to do an im- 
moderate amount of mischief. 

In conclusion. You are requested to ob- 
serve that we are quite agreed as to the 
Church being the Ark, — outside which are 
whelming waters : the Fold, — outside which 
are ravening wolves. I entirely subscribe to 
the axiom, extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. Like 
yourself, I hold that the Catholic Church is the 
Church which Christ commissioned to teach 
all nations, and in which His Holy Spirit 
dwells. All this I firmly believe and main- 
tain. The only question between us is, What 
is the Catholic Church ? We are quite agreed 
that with the World there can be no compro- 
mise ; and that " the Church holds on her 
awful way, through storm and sunshine, wait- 
ing for the Coming of her Lord." We are 
quite agreed about all that. But you are absurdly 
assuming all the while, that to be in the 
Church means, — to acknowledge the Papal 
supremacy ! You are forgetting that Christ 
(not Rome) is the Vine, and we (Rome and 
England) are [two of] the branches: — limbs 
of the Body they ; and He, the Head ! You 
evidently require to be taught, (and I proceed 
next to show you,) that for many hundred 
years the Church of Rome put forth no such 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 113 

claims as those she now advances ; and that, 
in the best ages of the Church, the doctrine 
you so coolly seek to impose upon me, was 
simply unknown. I request the favor of your 
prolonged attention. 



114 ROME AND ENGLAND. 



LETTER II. 

Shortcomings discoverable in the romish, as well as 
in the english church. — idolatry. — doctrine of 
purgatory and indulgences. — mariolatry. — super- 
stition. — fabulous and foolish stories in the romish 
breviary. — entire system of public worship in the 
romish church. — neglect of antiquity. — monstrous 
pretensions of the papacy. — rebaptization. — ro- 
manism a political power, and also a demoralizing 
principle. 

To the Same. 

Sir, — I have been content hitherto to stand 
on the defensive. You have brought sundry 
charges against the Church of England, which 
I have been content to repel. You clearly 
overlook two important considerations ; the 
first, — (I.) That if the shortcomings of the 
Church of England are to be all industriously 
raked up, — then, some notice must be taken 
of the shortcomings of the Church of Rome 
also : since it is not to be imagined for an 
instant that the Communion into which you 
have lately sought admission is immaculate ; 
and that only we have something to deplore. 
Next, — (II.) You forget that if the short- 
comings of the English Church were much 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 115 

more considerable than you attempt to make 
out, they would constitute no adequate reason 
for forsaking her. On both these heads, in 
this and my next letter, I propose to offer a 
few words. 

I am not about to multiply charges against 
the Church of Rome, as I easily might. I 
will confine myself to a few points : and, — 

1. The first charge I bring against her is, 
that she is an idolatrous church. By which 
I chiefly mean to say that she not only per- 
mits, but encourages, the worship of Images. 

You may not attempt to elude this accusa- 
tion by the old shift of distinguishing between 
different degrees of worship : and telling me, 
(what is undeniable,) that the Greek word 
Doidia means one thing, — the Greek word 
Latvia, another. Such philological subtleties, 
however commendable in their proper place, 
are altogether foreign to the matter in hand. 
For we are not going to discuss what two 
Greek words strictly mean, but what the 
Romish church actually does. Moreover, dis- 
tinctions like these, however plausible in the- 
ory, altogether disappear in practice, — as you 
ought to know very well. Above all, the 2nd 
Commandment is express and unconditional : 
" Thou shalt not bow down to worship them" 



116 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

— whether with one kind of worship or with 
another. Neither may you attempt to per- 
suade me, (even if you have succeeded in 
persuading yourself,) that the graven image is 
not worshipped, but that through the represen- 
tation the worshipper looks up to the Being 
represented. I shall show you that the wor- 
shipper is taught to do nothing' of the kind: 
and the authority which teaches him, is none 
other than one which you think infallible, — 
that, namely, of the Bishop of Rome himself. 
For, if the idol is nothing, but the Object 
represented everything, — pray, how does it 
come to pass that one idol is preferred before 
another ? If the intention of the Romish 
Church is to lift the thoughts of her children 
heavenward, how does it happen that worship, 
(whether Doulia or Latria^) offered to one 
image or picture rather than another, is en- 
couraged by the highest authority ? If the 
direct result of the Romish system is not to 
arrest the heavenward aspirations, and to re- 
strain them to the earthly image, how does it 
come to pass that miracles are ascribed to so 
many of the representations of the Saints ? 1 



1 One has not far to look for examples. — " Yi e una Ma- 
donna detta di S. Gregorio, della quale si dice, eke un giorno 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 117 

And if this result is deprecated by the authori- 
ties in the Komish Communion, how does it 
happen that a volume pretending to authenti- 
cate those miracles has been publicly put forth 
by authority ? . . . You will find these ques- 
tions hard indeed to answer. The volume of 
which I speak shall be again alluded to, pres- 
ently. 

You will tell me, I doubt not, that the 
theory of the Romish Church does not coun- 
tenance Idolatry, however fatally that plague 
may have developed itself in the Romish Com- 
munion. I am sorry that I cannot admit the 
validity of your plea. You are to observe that 
the Romish Church does nothing to check or 
disallow, — but, on the contrary, does much 
to promote and encourage, — image-worship. 
The statue of the Blessed Virgin in the Church 
of S. Agostino, at Rome, 1 would be quite suffi- 
cient to prove what I say : for the papal indul- 

passando il detto Pontifice, e non salutandola, gli dicesse," 
&c. (Rom. Modern. Gior. 5. Rion. di Campetalli. ) — "Ad 
sanctum Paulum, ubi vidimus ligneam Crucifixi Imaginem, 
quern sancta Brigida sibi loquentem audiisse perhibetur." 
(Mabill. D. Italic, p. 133.) — "Imaginem Sanctae Marise cus- 
todem Ecclesiae allocutam et Alexii singularem pietatem 
commendasse." (Durant, De Rots. 1. i. c. 5.) — See also Let- 
ters from Rome, p. 58-9. 

1 See Letters from Rome, p. 60-1. See above, p. 99 note. 



118 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

gence engraven on its base can be attended 
with only one result ; can have been put there 
with only one intention. The same may be 
said of every image set up in Roman Catholic 
Churches, so long as the people are taught 
to visit that image with especial veneration. 
Practically, the veneration paid to Images has 
reproduced the method of heathendom. " Notre 
Dame de Fourvieres," for example, is as much 
the tutelary goddess of Lyon, as ever was 
Minerva at Athens, or Diana at Ephesus. — 
Permit me to refer you to an exhibition else- 
where described by myself, — in which the 
Pope took a conspicuous part. 1 Are such 
transactions, (and they are very common in 
countries of the Romish obedience !) to be 
severed from the theory of the Romish sys- 
tem ? 2 

Leaving the question of image-worship, I 
have to remind you next, that your Church 



1 Letters from Rome, p. 59. 

2 See the Rev. W. Palmer's VHIth Letter to Wiseman, 
(1842,) wherein he demonstrates that "direct and formal 
Idolatry, — what Romanists themselves admit to be Idolatry, — 
is authorized and approved in the Romish Communion, and 
that Romanists are prevented by their own principles from 
condemning it." See p. 9. — The reader should also refer 
to Stillingfleet, Works, vol. v. p. 459. 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 119 

stands charged with being, in not a few re- 
spects, DOCTRINALLY CORRUPT. It shall Suffice 

to indicate only a few points. 

2. — Your doctrine of Purgatory and In- 
dulgences needs only to be stated, I should 
think, to proclaim its own sufficient and en- 
tire refutation. Concerning the former Doc- 
trine I have already said enough. But what 
is to be said of the complicated superstructure 
of error which has been built up on the foun- 
dation of that gross fiction ? The superfluous 
merits of the Saints departed are assumed 
to be deposited in a kind of Bank, in conjunc- 
tion, (shocking to relate !) with the merits and 
satisfaction of our Saviour. Of this Treasury, 
the Bishop of Rome keeps the key ; and over 
it, he has unlimited authority. He is thought 
to enjoy the privilege of drawing upon this 
fund at pleasure ; and to be at liberty, by a 
stroke of his pen, to apportion some of it to 
whomsoever he pleases. Nay, he claims to be 
able to appropriate the merits of any definite 
Saint to any indefinite person. Thus, over a 
Chapel in the transept of the Basilica of S. 
Lorenzo, at Rome, you read : — " This is that 
tomb out of the catacomb of St. Cyriaca, which 
is celebrated throughout the world. Whoso- 
ever here celebrates Mass for the Dead, will 



120 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

deliver their souls from Purgatorial pains, 
through the merits of St. Laurence ." 1 

This kind of inscription is even common. 
In the Church of S. Onofrio, what follows is 
framed, in the second chapel to the right as 
you enter : — " Altare privilegiato nel quale 
si libera dot Purgatorio quell' anima per la 
quale si prega, come si celebrasse all' altare 
di San Gregorio di Roma." ["A privileged 
altar at which a soul is delivered from Purges 
lory by prayer, as" if at the altar of St. Gregory 
in Rome."] . . . Again, in the Church of S. 
Carlo, is to be read as follows, (in the Chapel 
of the Assumption) : — " Innocentius XI. 
P.M. concessit ut quandocumq. in hoc Dei- 
parae altari pro anima cujuscumq. fidelis sac- 
rificium fuerit, ipsa a Purgat.poenis liberetur" 
[" Pope Innocent XI. granted that whenever 
mass is offered at this altar of the Mother of 
God, for the soul of any of the faithful, it shall 
be liberated from the penalties of Purgatory "~\ 
.... It is needless to multiply examples. 2 



1 " Hsec est tumba ilia toto orbe terrarum celeberrima ex 
Coemeterio S. Ciriacae matronae, ubi sacrum siquis fecerit 
pro defunctis, eorum animas a Purgatoriis poenis Divi Lau- 
rentii mentis evocabit." 

2 A few may be added in a note. Framed and glazed in 
the church of S. Maria Traspontina is the following : — " La 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 121 

You are hopelessly blind if you are not struck 
with the senseless profanity of a system which 
can develop such phenomena as these. 

This whole article of papal "Indulgences" 
is a sad blot on the Romish system. You may 
find it briefly discussed in a manner which 
you will discover quite unanswerable, by not 
a few of our Theologians. 1 Not to wade into 



santa memoria di Papa Paolo quinto, ad instanza del Card. 
Domen co . Pinelli vescovo di Porto e protettore delf Ordine 
Carmelitano concede la liberazione d'un anima dal Purgatorio a 
qualsivoglia sacerdote che celebra in questo altare intitotalo delle 
colonne dove furono flagellati i gloriosi Apostoli S. Pietro e 
S. Paolo, come piu ampiamente appare dal suo breve spedito 
dal Vaticano li sei Aprile mdcvi." . . . On the right of the 
altar in the dilapidated but curious church of S. Bartolo- 

meo: — " Gregorius XIII. P. 0. M apostolica auc- 

toritate concessit cuilibet ex eadem familia [sc. Franciscana] 
sacerdoti qui do mum hanc S. Bartholomaei incoleret si in ca- 
pella hac Dei Matri dedicata, quam sanctam appellant, sacri- 
ficium pro defunctis oflferret animam illam liberaret a Purgatorii 
poenis, pro qua sacrificaret, idque diplomate sanxit, Romae, xi. 
Kal. Septem. mdlxxxi." .... Under the Basilica of San- 
ta Croce, on a title affixed to the iron gate of the Capella di 
Pieta, is read : " Celebrandosi la S. Messa in questo altare 
si libera un y anima dal Purgatorio, come risulta dalla bolla 
della S. M. di Gregorio XIII." — Over the altar of S. Maria 
Scala Coeli : — " Celebrans hie animam a poenis Purgatorii 
liberate 

1 See, for example, Bp. Bull, Works, vol. ii. pp. 282-87. 
The reader is also referred to Newman's Lectures on the Pro- 
phetical Office of the Church, pp. 145-47. 



122 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

the depths of this iniquity, and to uncover the 
revolting consequences of this sad corruption 
of the primitive Faith, I am content to ask, 
What more transparently worthless than such 
promises as are attached to the performance 
of almost every public religious act ? Think 
only of a hundred days of indulgence for kiss- 
ing the foot of a statue and saying one Ave- 
Maria ! 1 seven years of indulgence for a visit 
paid to certain Relics ! plenary indulgence for 
eighteen visits paid with prayer, after confess- 
ing and communicating ! 2 But " plenary 
indulgence" is more easily attainable still. 
It appertains to him who attends five of the 
public catechisings, and is applicable to souls 
in Purgatory. 2, So are the nine years of in- 
dulgence which accrue to him who once as- 
cends the Scala Sancta devoutly 4 . . . Surely 
such fables are as foolish as they are profane. 5 

1 See Letters from Rome, p. 61. — As you enter the Colos- 
seum, on either hand you see in the wall a plain marble 
inlaid cross. Beneath is written: — "Baciando la Santa 
Croce si acquista un' anno e xl giorni oV Indulgenza." 

2 Ibid. p. 50. 3 Ibid. p.. 68. 4 Ibid. p. 75. 

5 As monstrous an instance as I ever met with, is the 
following, written over the altar of the Crocifisso, in the 
basilica of S. Lorenzo : — " Quisquis devoto ac contrito 
corde accedit ad istam crucem et ad altarem, plenariam om- 
nium suorum peccatorum indulgentiam consequitur." (!).... 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 123 

You may think as you please on the subject : 
but let me tell you the mischief of such Doc- 
trines must infinitely outweigh, in the judg- 
ment of persons of ordinary piety, sense and 
candour, any of the practical inconveniences 
which are experienced in our own branch of 
the Church Catholic .... How modern this 
entire system is, has been repeatedly shown ; 
as well as to what monstrous scandals it has 
paved the way. The sale of Indulgences be- 
came at last so flagrant an abuse that (as you 
are aware) it produced the Reformation. 

3. The next serious charge which I bring 
against your adopted Communion, is, that it 
puts the Blessed Virgin in the place of God. 
This is, in fact, the crowning iniquity of all, 
and as such calls for distinct and detailed men- 
tion. It is the great sin of modern Roman- 
ism. Quite useless is it, worse than useless, 
for any to pretend to disguise the plain fact 

Above the confessional in the same church ; — " Hoc sub 
fornice tumulata jacent corpora Ssr. Stephani protomartyris, 
Laurentii Diaconi, et Justini presbyteri et mart, ubi est quo- 
tidie asummis Pontijicibus concessa indulgentia plenaria" . . . . 
The following inscription occurs perpetually over the doors 
of Churches at Rome, e. g. over the door of S. Vincenzio 
Anastatio : — " Indulgentia plenaria perpetua — pro vivis et de- 
functis." What does this precisely mean 1 It cannot surely 
mean what it says. 



124 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

that the Mother of our Lord is more than 
worshipped at Rome. Not only are the in- 
communicable attributes of the Creator eagerly 
transferred to the creature ; but she is set 
before, and in the place of, her Divine Son. 
She (not He) is styled the " unica spes pec- 
catorum." [" Sinners' only hope."] Her image, 
(not His,) meets you at the corner of every 
street. In her Litany, she is addressed as 
" Salus infirmorum, Refugium peccatorum, 
Consolatrix afflictorum, Auxilium Christian- 
orum." [" Health of the sick, Refuge of sin- 
ners, Comforter of the afflicted, Help of 
Christians."] The popular teaching with re- 
spect to her is reflected in such verses as the 
following, which are found at the close of the 
most approved popular manual of devotions : — 
" Se l'infernal nemico Va Talma mia tentando, 
Maria, Maria chiamando, in fuga il metterd. 
Ripeterd Maria in ogni mio periglio, Mi e 
Madre, io son suo figlio, Mai non la lascierd. 
II mio maggior conforto Nell' ultima agonia 
Sara chiamar Maria, Chiamarla e poi morir." 1 
[" If the infernal enemy tempts my soul, I will 
put him to flight by repeatedly calling on 
Mary. Mary I will repeat whenever I am in 

1 Massime Eterne, &c., 1856, ad fin. 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 125 

danger : she is my mother, I am her child, I 
will never forsake her. My greatest comfort 
in my last agony, will be to call Mary, to call 
her, and then die."] Is it possible to read 
such sentiments without turning sick at heart ? 

— What ? Under temptation, — in all seasons 
of adversity and peril, — on my dying bed, 
and in the very hour of death, shall I make, 
not the tender mercies of my Saviour and my 
God, but the Virgin MaryQ.^), the strength 
and stay of my fainting soul ? Is it possible 
that a Christian man can seriously intend it ? 

— That she was indeed a great Saint, incom- 
parably the chief of female Saints, who can 
doubt ? That she was Qeotoxoq, (for which, by 
the way, " mother of God " is scarcely a fair 
English equivalent,) — who shall presume to 
deny ? 1 But then, she was human, not Divine : 
and, " being by nature born in Sin," (as 
Augustine repeatedly remarks, 2 ) she herself 

1 The Greeks, (as early as the days of Origen,) had in- 
vented this appellation, — the precise Latin equivalent for 
which is Deipara. The Latin Church, substituting for Dei- 
para the stronger expression Dei Genetrix and Mater Dei, was 
in turn followed by the Greek Church, which hesitated not 
to call the Virgin M.7]tt](j Qeov. See the two learned notes 
in Pearson on the Creed. — Art. III. p. 177. 

2 " Maria . . . de carnali concupiscent ia parentum nata est." 
(Opus Imperfectum, lib. vi., c. xxii. Opp. x., p. 1334.) — 



126 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

needed a Saviour ! ... Is not the folly, not 
to say the blasphemy of the teaching above 
alluded to, patent and horrible ? 

What I have been describing pervades the 
system. In the month of May, the same lion 
ours are paid in Church to the Blessed Virgin 
which at other times are paid to our Lord ; 
and with far more enthusiasm. The "Annee 
Liturgique " enumerates twenty-two festivals 
in honour of Him : in honour of Aer, no less 
than two-and-forty. — What need to advert to 
the fatal dogma of 1854, whereby Rome has 
effectually cut herself off from the rest of 
Catholic Christendom, — ancient and modern ? 
A marble column with figures, recently erected 
at the corner of the Piazza di Spagna, com- 
memorates the publication of that dogma ; and 
a conspicuous inscription at the extreme east 
of St. Peter's, on the north side of the altar, 
records how the present Pope, on the 8th of 



Again : " Virginis, cujus caro . . . de peccati propagine venit." 
And again : " Corpus Christi, quamvis ex carne feminae 
assumtum est, quae de ilia carnis peccati propamine concepta 
fuerat, tamen, quia non sic in ea conceptum est, quomodo 
fuerat ilia concepta, nee Ipse erat caro peccati, sed siniilitudo 
carnis peccati/' (De Genesi ad literam, lib. x., c. xix., § 32. 
Opp. iii., pp. 268-9.) — See more in Bp. Beveridge on Art. 
XV. note (c) : Works, vol. ix., p. 350. 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 127 

December, 1854, there proclaimed it, " and 
satisfied the longings of the whole Catholic 
world " ! ! ! Whereas, surely, no one deserving 
the name of Catholic can read that inscription, 
or contemplate the class of phenomena to 
which I have been adverting, (phenomena 
which are not of rare occurrence, but which 
meet one at every step,) without the profound 
est sentiment of perplexity and sorrow. How, 
in the face of profanity so patent, any one of 
sound mind who has been nurtured in the 
bosom of our own holy Church, can apostatise 
from it in order to adopt the communion of 
Rome, is more than I am able to understand. 
This great sin of Mariolatry is so great, — 
so gross and patent, — that it calls for repeated 
protest, and admits of endless illustration. 
Thus, at Lyon, under the picture of " Notre 
Dame de Fourvieres " is* read, — "0 Marie, 
6coutez favorablement les vceux et les prieres 
de vos fideles serviteurs." Behind, — " Sou- 
venez vous, tres misericordieuse Vierge 
Marie, qu'on n'a jamais ou'i dire qu'aucun 
de ceux qui ont eu recours a votre protection 
ait ete abandonne. Plein de cette confiance, 
ma tendre Mere, je viens a vous ; et gemis- 
sant sous les poids de mes peches, je me pros- 
terne a vos pieds. JEcoutez favorablement 



128 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

mapriere, et daignez Vexaucer." [" Mary, 
listen favourably to the wishes and prayers 
of your faithful servants." — " Remember, 
most merciful Virgin, that it never was heard 
that any one was forsaken who applied to you 
for protection. Full of this confidence, ten- 
der Mother, I come unto you ; and groaning 
beneath the burthen of my sins, I prostrate my- 
self at your feet. Listen graciously to my 
prayer, and deign to grant i£."] .... Now, 
let any honest person say whether this be not 
addressing the Blessed Virgin as if she were 
God ? Instead of " our Father," it is " my 
Mother," " at whose feet " the sinner " groan- 
ing beneath the burthen of his sins " " pros- 
trates himself." To her he addresses " his 
prayer ! " At her hands, he asks to have it 
granted ! .... Is it not a mere trifling with 
the Truth to affect to doubt whether this be a 
breaking of the first Commandment or not ? 

Approach the capital, and see whether things 
are conducted differently there. Can anything 
be worse than the ex-voto tablets which bid 
fair soon to cover the walls of Notre Dame des 
Victoires at Paris ? — e. g\, " J'ai prie Marie 
pendant 8 ans pour une oeuvre impossible : et 
j'ai et6 exauce, le 8 Dec. 1859." — Amour 
et reconnaissance envers Marie qui a sauvS ma 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 129 

fille, 30 Juillet, 1856." "J'ai prie J6sus, 
Marie, et Joseph. J'ai 6t6 exaucee le 15 
Nov. 1856." — " Marie, qui nous a conservee 
noire enfant" &c. — "0 Marie, je vous re- 
mercie d'avoir sauve mon pere. C.D.G. 29 
Mars, 1857," &c. &c. &c. [" I prayed to Mary 
for an impossible thing during eight years, 
and my prayer was granted." — " Love and 
gratitude towards Mary who has saved my 
daughter." — "I prayed to Jesus, Mary, and 
Joseph: my prayer was granted Nov. 15." — 
" Mary who preserved our child." — " Mary, 
I thank you for having saved my father."] 

As for Rome, the extent to which this kind 
of thing is there carried, is almost incredible. 
An inscription outside the Church of the 
Minerva records the height to which the Tiber 
rose in the inundation of 1530, with this in- 
scription : " Hue Tiber ascendit, jamque obruta 
tota fuisset Roma, nisi huic celerem Virgo 
tulisset opem." — [" Hither the Tiber rose, and 
all Rome would soon have been destroyed, had 
not the Virgin brought prompt succour."] — 
The same is said elsewhere concerning an 
earthquake which threatened the city in 1703. 
— In the Church of S. Carlo, in the Chapel of 
the Assumption, (over a picture representing 
the legend), is inscribed, — " Tu sola uni- 
9 



130 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

versas haereses interemisti." [" Thou alone 
hast destroyed all heresies."] But I have 
already shown that the young and the illiter- 
ate are taught by the popular books of devo- 
tion to fly to the Virgin in every danger, as 
well as to build upon her their confidence in 
death : and that she enjoys a far larger amount 
of popular worship even than our Saviour 
Christ Himself. 

The glaring offence against Catholic an- 
tiquity and scriptural Truth which Rome com- 
mitted in 1854, when she proclaimed the 
blasphemous dogma of the Immaculate Con- 
ception, has been already sufficiently adverted 
to. It would do you good to read on this subject 
L'Abb6 Laborde's " Relation et Memoire des 
Opposants au Nouveau Dogme de Flmmacu- 
lee Conception," 1855, p. 108. This impious 
dogma constitutes of course the crowning of- 
fence of modern Romanism, — a step which 
must inevitably bring down the wrath of God 
on that branch of the Catholic Church. For 
this reason I have made the worship of the 
Blessed Virgin a separate head of complaint 
against your Church, 1 



1 The fatal consequences of the introduction of this new 
dogma, and the blasphemy which it implies, may be seen 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 131 

As might be expected, the veneration with 
which she is regarded, is freely extended to 
other Saints. In the Church of S. Genevieve 
at Paris, you read on the ex-voto tablets, as 
follows : — " J'ai invoque S. Genevieve pen- 
dant un incendie, elle m'a exauc^e le 28 Oct. 
1859. C. G." — " J'ai prie S. Genevieve pour 
la sante de mon fils, et j'ai 6t6 exaucee. 
E. C." — J'ai prie S. Genevieve pendant la 
maladie de ma fille. Elle Va sauvee." [" I 
called upon St. Genevieve during a conflagra- 
tion, and she granted my request." — "I 
prayed to St. Genevieve for the health of my 
son, and it was granted." — "I prayed to St. 
Genevieve during the illness of my daughter : 
she saved her."] — Will you pretend to tell 
me, that the persons who so write do not mean 
what they say ? or mean any other thing than 
that S. Genevieve is " God, to kill and to make 
alive " ? 

4. If I do not dwell on the unscriptural 
practice of your adopted Church of denying 
the Cup to all but the consecrating Priest in 



ably stated in the Bp. of Oxford's recent sermon, — Rome's 
New Dogma and our Duties. At the end, is printed Dr. Mill's 
Catena of Catholic evidence on the doctrine of the Immacu- 
late Conception. 



162 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

the Holy Communion, it is not because I think 
this a light matter, but because it is needless 
to enlarge on what is so patent a violation of 
the Divine Command. 1 The sinfulness of 
Half-Communion has been often exposed, 2 
and ought not to require explaining. That 
■ the practice is of quite modern date, who 
knows not ? 3 

5. I declare next that the Romish Church 
is grossly superstitious. It would be easy 
to fill a volume with illustrations of this state- 
ment, but I am about to do nothing of the 
kind. I am content to refer you to what has 
been already offered on the subject of Relics, 
in the Appendix : and shall only remind you 
of a few additional particulars. 4 

What think you then of the following in- 
scription ? It occurs on the right of the under- 



1 St. John vi. 53. St. Matth. xxvi. 26, 27. 

2 See the Sequel to Dr. Wordsworth's Letter to M. Gon~ 
don, — p. 107, &c. Letters V. and VI. 

3 " Habet enim magnam vocem Christi sanguis in terra, 
cum eo recepto ab omnibus gentibus respondetur, Amen." 
[Augustin. cont. Faust. Manich. lib. xii. c. 10. Opp. viii. 
382. b.] " Quare," (remarks Bp. Andrewes,) "duo hie 
egregia habemus : 1. Universam Ecclesiam participem esse Ca- 
licis. 2. Cum accipiunt, dicere, Amen." [Works, xi, p. 
157.] 

4 Appendix C. 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 133 

ground Chapel (of the Presepe) in the Sistine 
Chapel, in the Basilica of S. Maria Maggiore : 
— " Hie, S. Cajetanus, auspice Divo Hiero- 
nymo, cujus ossa non procul jacent, in ipsa 
natalitia Cbristi nocte, accepit a Deipara in 
ulnas suas puerum Jesum." [" Here St. 
Cajetan, under the auspices of St. Jerome, 
whose bones rest not far off, received on Christ- 
mas night, in his own arms, the child Jesus 
from the Mother of God."] Now, does any 
one in his senses really believe that the Blessed 
Virgin put the Infant Saviour, (who now " sit- 
teth at the Right Hand of God ! ") into Ca- 
jetau's arms ? But even supposing that she 
did (!), what on earth can Jerome's bones have 
had to do with the circumstance ? . . . . You 
must surely feel that a Church which can 
perpetrate such absurdities, can so outrage 
common sense, common decency, — however 
successful she may be in conciliating indul- 
gence, has yet need to be very slow in pointing 
out the shortcomings of any other Communion 
under the sun. 

And then, what is to be thought of the su- 
perstitions attaching to images and pictures at 
Rome and elsewhere ? A portrait of the 
Blessed Virgin for instance at S. Maria in 
Cosmedin, — (a very interesting old church 



134 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

near our English burial-ground,) — claims to 
have worked miracles. Another, in a church 
on the Coelian, is stated to have spoken to 
Gregory the Great. At the church of S. Agos- 
tino, there is a fine statue, called " Maria 
santissima del Parto," which has also wrought 
sundry wonders. But among all the objects 
of this class to which the people of Rome " ha 
fatto particolare ricorso in tutte le pid grandi 
afflizioni della Chiesa," [" has had particular 
recourse in all the greatest afflictions of the 
Church "] (I am recalling the words of an 
" Invito Sagro" dated 27 March, 1861,) 
" speciale fiducia " [" special confidence " 
has always been shown to an " antichissima 
imagine di Gesii Crocifisso " [" a most ancient 
image of Jesus on the cross "] preserved in 
the Campo Vaccino. Let me earnestly invite 
you to obtain access to a little volume which 
was put forth only sixty-four years ago, under 
the highest authority ; entitled, De' Prodigi 
avvenuti in molte sagre Immagini, specialmente 
di Maria Santissima, secondo gli autentici Pro- 
cessi compilati in Roma, memorie, estratte, e 
ragionate da D. Gio. Marchetti, Examinatore 
Apostolico del Clero e Presidente del Gesti. 
Con breve ragguaglio di altri simili Prodigi 
comprovati nelle Curie Vescovili dello Stato 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 135 

Pontificio. — Roma, 1797. [" On miracles 
wrought in many sacred images, especially of 
the blessed Mary, according to authentic docu- 
ments collected at Rome, and records selected 
and digested by D. Gio. Marchetti, apostolic 
examiner of the clergy and president of Jesus 
College. With a short account of other simi- 
lar miracles, proved and admitted by the Epis- 
copal courts of the Papal States."] — I cite 
this curious publication, (which I believe is 
sufficiently rare,) because it affords authentic 
evidence on the subject under consideration. 
It exhibits small engravings of 26 images, — 
24 of which are representations of the Virgin. 
The locality of each image is carefully speci- 
fied ; and the opening and shutting of eyes 
performed by each, as vouched for by 86 wit- 
nesses, is duly recorded. At p. 221, is the 
autograph attestation of Cardinal Delia So- 
maglia, (the Vicar General of that day,) to 
the whole inquiry, which he had been dele- 
gated to conduct in person. This is followed 
by a considerable Supplement and Appendix 
of duly-certified wonders of the same descrip- 
tion. The book was translated into English, 
— but most rigorously suppressed. 

6. I have no wish to be hard upon you, and 
therefore will pass on. But I scruple not to 



136 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

declare that the superstitious legends of fabu- 
lous Saints, in the Roman Breviary, are alone 
a fatal blot upon your adopted Communion : 
for these at least are put forth by the very 
highest authority, and therefore compromise 
the whole Church. I must really enlarge a 
little on this ; because it is so very important 
and peculiar a matter. The altars, images, 
and pictures set up here and there by private 
piety, — however sanctioned by public authority 
they may be, — are yet (you will say,) not 
the official documents of the Church. " True 
enough," (I reply,) "but the Papal Indul- 
gences engraved upon them are." Be it so, 
however, that they stand on a different footing 
from the Roman Breviary itself, — of which, 
by implication you vaunt the paramount merit 
when you insinuate, with a sneer, that our 
English Book of Common Prayer is remarka- 
ble for nothing so much as its novelty. Let us 
see exactly how this matter really stands. I 
invite your best attention. 

You are requested then first to note that our 
Book at least has no references, (as yours 
has 1 ) to the Decretals, (a known forgery of 



1 Romish Breviary, 13th July, (Anacletus,) Lectio: — 
26th April (Cletus.) 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 137 

the end of the Eighth Century,) as if they 
were authentic documents : no memoirs of 
Early Bishops, 1 confessedly destitute of foun- 
dation : 2 no lections, like those for 23rd No- 
vember (Clement of Rome,) which are allowed 
by Romanists themselves to be u une fable sotte 
et ridicule." 3 Quite as untrustworthy, al- 
though less ridiculous is the legend of Corne- 
lius, Bishop of Rome ; 4 that of Marcellinus, 
(26th April,) — the existence of which in the 
Roman Breviary excited the astonishment of 
Petavius ; that of Marcellus (16th January) ; 
and that of Sylvester, (30th December,) — the 
absurdity of which the Abbe Laborde has re- 
marked upon in detail. 5 " Que diront de nous 
les Protestants ? " (he asks :) " Que diront de 
nous les savants ? " 

Charity might perhaps have invented an ex- 
cuse for legends untrustworthy even as these : 

1 E. g. Anicetus, 17th April : Soter and Caius, 22nd : Cle- 
tus, 26th : Alexander, 3d May: Urbanus, 26th : Felix, 30th : 
Pius, 11th July: Anacletus, 13th: Victor, 28th: Zephyri- 
nus, 26th August : Linus, 23d September : Calixtus, 14th 
October : Euaristus, 26th : Fabian, 20th January. 

2 Tillemont, artt. Anacletus, Linus, Clement (note 12), Eua- 
ristus. (Laborde's Lettres Parisiennes, 1855. pp. 71-3.) 

3 Tillemont, T. ii. pp. 605-9. See Laborde, pp. 72-5. 

4 Brev. Rom. 16th Sept. 

5 Lettres Parisiennes, pp. 78-81. 



138 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

but when, quitting the early Bishops of Rome, 
we get on holy ground, how shall we endure 
apocryphal stories about St. Andrew ; 1 St. 
James the Greater ; 2 St. Philip ; 3 St. Barthol- 
omew; 4 St. Matthew; 5 St. Thomas; 6 St. Si- 
mon and St. Jude ? 7 The hypothesis that 
Dionysius the Areopagite and St. Denys of 
France are identical persons, is rejected by all 
French critics. The legendary history of Dio- 
nysius, in like manner, is abandoned as belong- 
ing to the regions of pure fable ; and the 
French Breviaries exhibit no trace of it, ac- 
cordingly. It is all to be found, however, in 
the Romish Breviary, under 9th October : ex- 
tending over three Lections. 

Besides identifying Mary Magdalene, Mary 
the sister of Lazarus, and the woman who was 
a sinner, — the Roman Breviary presents us 
with the Apocryphal legend which connects 
Martha, Mary, and Lazarus, with the Church 
of Marseilles, — a known fabrication of the 
tenth century. 8 Upwards of thirty of its le- 
gends are by the confession of Romanists them- 

1 30th November, Lectt. iv. v. vi. 

2 25th July, Lectt. v. vi. 3 1st May, Lectt. iv. v. vi. 
4 24th Aug. Lectt. iv. v. vi. 5 21st Sept. Lectt. iv. v. 

6 21st Dec. Lect. iv. * 28th Oct. Lect. iv. 

8 29th July. Laborde, pp. 88-104. 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 139 

selves, mythical : J some of the Saints are even 
imaginary personages. Read the silly story 
of Pascal Baylon, after he was dead, opening 
and shutting his eyes twice at the elevation of 
the host ; the preposterous anecdote of John's, 
(Pope and Martyr) horse ; (17th and 27th 
May) of Franciscus of Paula ; (2nd April) of 
Peter Chrysologus ; (4th December) of St. 
John of Matha ; (8th February) of Maria ad 
nives ; of St. Peter ad Vincula ; (5th and 1st 
August) — read such things as these ; and 
then judge whether Rome is in a position to 
charge England with novelty 1 2 



1 As the legends of Boniface; of Venantius ; (18th May) 
of Eustachius and his companions; (20th Septemher) of 
Cecilia; of Catharine; (22nd and 25th November) of Pris- 
ca; of Martina; (18th and 30th January) of the forty Mar- 
tyrs; of Patritius; (10th and 17th March) of Pudentiana ; 
(19th May) of Vitus, Modestus, and Crescentia ; of John 
and Paul; (loth and 26th June) of Rufina and Secunda ; 
of Alexius ; (10th and 17th July) of Cyriacus, Largus, and 
Smaragdus; (8th August) of Cosmas and Damian ; (27th 
September) of Babiana; of Nicolaus ; of Lucy ; (2nd, 6th, 
13th, December) of Marius, Martha, Audifax, and Aba- 
chus; of Agnes; (19th and 28th January) of Agatha; (5th 
February) 

2 The above instances are specified by M. l'Abbe La- 
borde in chapters x. xi. xii. of his Lettres Parisiennes, — a 
spirited remonstrance against the introduction of the Romish 
Missal and Breviary into France as substitutes for the Books 



140 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

7. Lastly, I must freely say that the entire 
system of public worship of your new friends 
is open to the gravest objections. I have writ- 



of the Paris use. " Dans le Missel Romain, il y a un grand 
n ombre de morceaux de composition d'auteurs ecclesias- 
tiques ; souvent les paroles des homines y sont melees avec 
les paroles de Dieu. Dans le Parisien, vous ne voyez rien 
de pareil. A Texception des proses qui sont une espece 
d'hymne ; des prefaces qui sont une oraison, et de quelques 
prieres que Fusage de FEglise universelle a consacrees, tout 
est exactement de Feeriture," &c, &c. Lettres Parisiennes, 
ou discussion sur les deux Liturgies Parisienne et Romaine, pour 
eclairer la determination de ceux qui ont a prononcer entre le Mis- 
sel et le Bre*ciaire Romains et entre le Missel et le Breviaire de 
Paris. [Par M. FAbbe Laborde]. Paris, 1855: p. 151. — 
The whole work is well worth perusal. It is, in fact, a 
triumphant vindication of the superiority of the Gallican 
over the Romish Ritual. " Tout ce qu'il y avait de bon 
dans le Missel Romain a ete conserve dans le Missel de 
Paris : Mais on trouve dans le Missel de Paris mille excel- 
lentes choses qui sont a desirer dans le Romain." (p. 158.) 
It is instructive to hear a Romanist thus speaking of the 
Ritual of Rome. In the text the excellence of our reformed 
book is vindicated. " I have often been thinking," says a 
learned non-juror, " that one could not do a greater service 
to the Reformation than by translating into English the Mis- 
sal, Breviary, Pontifical, Manual, and other public service- 
books of the Church of Rome ; with brief annotations, 
shewing the rise of all that is foolish and superstitious, and 
the antiquity of what remains good and commendable in 
them. This might be done in a very few volumes, and 

those not very large It is certain that the leaders in 

the Church of Rome would with reason look upon it as 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 141 

ten sufficiently largely on this subject else- 
where; 1 and even you will not accuse me of 
having written those remarks in an unkind 
spirit. I made the best of everything at Rome. 
But when you twit me with my "position," 
&c. it seems to be high time that I should re- 
mind you a little of yours. 

Suppose, moreover, instead of remaining at 
Rome, we transport ourselves in thought to 
the capital of " the eldest son of the Church." 
It is Sunday morning at Paris. The open 
shops, — the noisy traffic, — the cries, — the 
din, — the whirl of vehicles, — the throng, — 
all is oppressive and strange. Is this the way 
Sunday is observed in the first of Roman Cath- 
olic countries, — and in the very capital ? You 
inquire for the principal church, and you pro- 



a terrible blow given them, if such translations could be 
published in all the vulgar tongues of Europe.'" — Preface 
to Johnson's Collection of Canons &c. § xi. — How does it 
come to pass by the way that all our most famous and most 
learned elder writers, Andrewes, Taylor, Laud, Beveridge, 
Bull, Butler, should have been thus honest and downright • 
in their language concerning Popery ; while certain of our 
more recent lights express themselves on the same subject 
with such singular squeamishness, mawkishness and senti- 
mentality ? 

1 Letters from Rome, p. 36 to 98. See also the Appendix, 
infra D. 



142 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

ceed to the Madeleine. Surely, (you say to 
yourself as you approach it,) this must be the 
shrine of some heathen deity ; not a Christian 
church ! The churches at Rome, (like our 
own city churches,) are sufficiently uneeclesi- 
astical in their structure ; but this is a bona 
fide Temple. 

Enter : and if Divine Service is going on, is 
it not your first impression that you have lost 
your way, and inadvertently entered a play- 
house ? What else can be the meaning of that 
multitude of personages in white, decked with 
blue and pink sashes, lilac silk, transparent 
muslin, black capes, red caps, gold fringe, lace, 
and fur ; and all performing in such a strange 
histrionic style in front of a pryamidal group of 
angels, lighted up by eighty or ninety candles, 
while boys are carrying tall candles, and young 
men are throwing and catching censer-boxes, 
— far more like jugglers playing a trick, than 
persons assisting at the worship of the Lord 
of Hosts ? Are these melodramatic evolutions 
sanctioned by Breviary or Missal ? and are not 
those mountebanks, rather than persons of the 
clerical order? 

Oh, but all this is mere prejudice, (I shall 
be told.) A theatrical nation, fond of the pic- 
turesque in Religion, as in everything else, has 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 143 

adopted a gaudier ritual than your cold north- 
ern taste is altogether able to approve. Boys 
may wear pink dresses, I suppose, with white 
muslin over them, without endangering An- 
tiquity ? — Allowed. Let us inquire then what 
is the order of the Service for the day, and as- 
certain what these performers are all actually 
about. " Aujourd'hui, 5 Fevrier, Septuage- 
sime. Au choeur on celebre la Solemnity de la 
Presentation de N. S. et de la S. Vierge. — A 
8f h. la premiere grande Messe (du Dimanche) 
suivie du Prone par M. le Cur£. — A 10| h. la 
Benediction des cierges, l'Aspersion, et la sec- 
onde grande Messe. — A 1 h. la derniere Messe. 
— A 2 h. None, Vespres, Sermon, . . . et le 
Salut. — Le soir, a 8 h. Reunion de la Con- 
frerie et Procession." [" To-day, February 5, 
Septuagesima. In the choir the Solemnity of 
the Presentation of Our Lord and the Blessed 
Virgin is celebrated. — At a quarter of nine 
o'clock, the first High Mass, followed by a ser- 
mon from the curate. — At a quarter of eleven, 
the Blessing of Candles, the Aspersion or 
Sprinkling of the People, and the second High 
Mass. — At one o'clock the last Mass. — At 
two o'clock, Nones, Vespers, Sermon, and the 
Salutation. — In the evening at eight o'clock, 
Meeting of the Brotherhood and Procession."" 



144 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

Iii other words, the sacred solemnities of the 
Feast of the Purification (2nd February) have 
been transferred to Septuagesima, — the ensu- 
ing Sunday (5th Feb.) in defiance of propriety 
and of the Prayer-Book. The Sacrament of 
the Lord's Supper is celebrated by the clergy 
in the hearing of such of the lay people as 
choose to attend, thrice in the morning, — the 
earliest occasion being at a quarter to 9 (!). A 
short address, a blessing of candles, and As- 
persion, complete the programme. Nones and 
Vespers, (by accumulation!) at 2 o'clock 1 (!) 
are followed by a Sermon. Where then are 
Matins, Lauds, and Prime ? The fancy- 
prayers of a Confraternity, and " Procession," 
close the day. ... If you admire this repre- 
sentation of the Catholic method, — (and you 
will please to observe that we have resorted for 
it to the first Roman Catholic nation in the 
world ; and ascertained how it is exhibited in 
the best Church of the French metropolis,) — 
I am sorry for you. Commend vie to the 
Catholic method as it is to be seen in the best 
Churches of the metropolis of Anglo-G&t\\o\iQ, 
England. 



1 At S. Roch, the second church in Paris, Vespers, &c. 
are at 1.30. 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 145 

And next, for the effect of all this on the 
people. The public religion of the Parisians^ 
as it may be called, is to be seen in the utter 
desecration of the Sunday exhibited univer- 
sally out of church. The veritable " Theatre " 
begins a few hours later ! There will also ha 
buying and selling going on till half-past 10 at 
night, in the public streets. . . . In Church, 
where are the men ? Why do all sit, — whis- 
per, — look unconcerned, — or read books not 
of the Service ? Why this coming in and 
going out, at all hours ? Why so much gath- 
ering of money? And then, that offensive 
chaissiere, coming for her vile two or three 
sous, in the middle of the Service ! Could no 
other way be devised of paying for being un- 
comfortable ? .... To be brief. " The Gal- 
lican use " seen through Liturgical spectacles 
at the end of a vista of a thousand years, looks 
picturesque and venerable enough. So does 
the Roman Use. So does the Use of Sarum. 
But you seem to make Church-membership an 
open question ; and talk as if you were " an 

unattached Christian" (as Lady wittily 

described herself;) and as if every one was 
" in search of a Religion." Now, if contrast- 
ing of methods is to be the order of the day, 
then I have but to request that you will con- 

10 



146 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

trast like with like, and contrast fairly ; and I 
have no misgiving whatever as to what will be 
the result. You may not, at all events, de- 
scribe Romanism as it is to be seen set off to 
the greatest advantage in one of the best ap- 
pointed and most sumptuous Churches in 
Rome ; and straightway contrast the imposing 
and attractive result with our Anglican method, 
as it is to be seen in the ill-served church of a 
neglected village in one of our remoter English 
provinces. 

No doubt I shall be told that the Madeleine 
is a gay and fashionable Church, and that I 
ought not to go there for a sample of the Rom- 
ish devotion of the French capital. So, in 
truth I thought ; and frankly stated my senti- 
ments to a very pious person. " Go," (she 
said,) " to Notre Dame des Victoires, at 7 in 
the evening ; " and I went. 

The devoutness of the congregation of that 
Church delighted me, I confess ; but it was the 
devotion of a Meeting-House. About five hun- 
dred were assembled, all of the humbler class. 
The prayers were altogether modern, and very 
wretched compositions. The people sat while 
the Psalms were being chanted. True, that 
most of them joined in them heartily: but 
they had not come together for common Prayer. 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 147 

I tried to look over their books, and ascertained 
that only some had come provided with the 
manual of the confraternity : the rest were 
otherwise employed. One near me was read- 
ing the " Manuel des pieuses domestiques." 
A single priest officiated, and the service lasted 
exactly two hours and a half. It was called, 
" Vespers of the Virgin," — for she is the pre- 
siding Deity of Romanism, whether in, or out 
of Rome. As for the Sermon, it was as worth- 
less and weak as possible ; but the speaker was 
fluent and earnest. — Now this is a true pic- 
ture of popular Romanism as it is to be seen 
in Paris since the great Revival effected by M. 
Desgenettes, — who organized the " Archicon- 
frerie du tres-saint et immacule coeur de Marie, 
pour la conversion des p^cheurs." Does it ap- 
pear to you particularly attractive ? Does it, 
at all events warrant any saucy remarks in 
disparagement of our Anglican method ? It 
was, in fact, neither more nor less than a Re- 
vival, in the modern popular sense of the term, 
which M. Desgenettes contrived. But the 
point to be observed is, that he compiled a set 
of fancy prayers for the public worship of the 
Confraternity, — and that Pope Gregory XVI. 
(in 1836) solemnly ratified all that he had 
done. The propriety of such sanction, I am 



148 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

not going to discuss. But I wish that, instead 
of being ensnared by the claim to Antiquity, 
put forth by the Church of Rome, members of 
our own communion would take the trouble to 
acquaint themselves with the true state of the 
case. I wish they would have the candour to 
recognise the solemn fact that Antiquity abides 
with us : that the Romish ritual, — the public 
worship of Almighty God as it takes place 
practically in the Church of Rome, — is an 
invention of yesterday: weak, unscriptural, 
"unsound, worthless. 1 

8. I might prolong this kind of discussion 
indefinitely. If I were to attempt to enume- 
rate all the vices in the theory, all the mis- 
chiefs in the practical working, of the Romish 
system, the task before me would be endless. 
I should have to give you a lecture " on Ro- 
manism as neglectful of Antiquity : " 2 and 
should have to preface it by a lecture on Ro- 



1 The reader is referred to the Appendix, D and E. 

2 " However we explain it, so much is clear, that the 
Fathers are only so far of use in the eyes of Romanists as 
they prove the Roman doctrines ; and in no sense are allowed to 
interfere with the conclusions which the Church has adopted ; 
that they are of authority when they seem to agree with 
Home, of none if they differ. .... How hopeless then is it 
to contend with Romanists, as if they practically agreed 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 149 

manism as neglectful of Scripture. " She 
assumes," (says Archdeacon Wordsworth,) 
" a superiority over the Fathers and Councils 
of the Ancient Church. This she has shown 
a priori by affirming, that if Councils or Fath 
ers speak in opposition to her, they are to be 
regarded as pro tanto of no authority. Sec- 
ondly, she exercises this assumed superiority 
in practice, by mutilating, (or, as she terms it, 
correcting) the records of the Early Church. 
Sixtus Senensis 2 commended Pope Pius V. for 
the care he took " in purging all the composi- 

with us as to the foundation of faith, however much they 
pretend to it! Ours is Antiquity, theirs the existing 
Church. . . . 

" I make one remark more. Enough has been said to 
show the hopefulness of our own prospects in the contro- 
versy with Eome. We have her own avowal that the Fath- 
ers ought to be followed, and again that she does not follow 
them ; what more can we require than her witness against 
herself which is here supplied us ? If such inconsistency is 
not at once fatal to her claims, which it would seem to be, 
at least it is a most encouraging omen in our contest with 
her. We have but to remain pertinaciously and immovably fixed 
on the ground of Antiquity : and as truth is ours, so will the vic- 
tory be also." — Xewman's Lectures on the Prophetical Office of 
the Church, pp. 84, 68, 100. 

1 Epist. dedicat. ad Pium Y. P. M. " Expurgari et ema- 
culari curasti omnia Catholicorum scriptorum ac praecipue 
veterum Patrum scripta." [This note and the three which 
follow, are by Archd. W.] 



150 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

tions of Catholic writers, and specially those 
of the ancient Fathers : " and the mode in 
which this work of purgation was performed 
may be conceived from the following examples. 
Augustine says, "Faith only justifies:" — 
"Our works cannot save us:" — "Marriage 
is allowed to all:" — "Peter erred in the 
question of clean and unclean meats:" — 
" St. John cautions us against the invocation 
of Saints." The holy bishop, (says the Church 
of Rome,) is to be corrected in all these 
places. 1 — Chrysostom teaches that "Christ 
forbids heretics to be put to death ; " that " to 
adore martyrs is antichristian ; " that " the 
reading of Scripture is needful to all ; " that 
" there is no merit but from Christ ; " that it 
is " a proud thing to detract from or add to 
Scripture ; " that " Bishops and Priests are 
subject to the higher powers ; " that the " Pro- 
phets had wives." The venerable Patriarch 



1 I copy these passages from the Index Expur gator ius, Im- 
pensis Lazari Zetzneri, 1599. This Index was not to be 
published. See Prsef. B. 6. "Praelati in omnibus urbibus 
ubi bibliopolae inhabitant unum et item alterum sibi deligere 
poterunt, quos idoneos judicabunt, sedulos et fideles : iique 
ipsi privatim nullisque consciis apud se Indicem expurgato- 
rium habebunt, quern eundem neque aliis communicabunt, 
neque ejus exemplum ulli dabunt." 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 151 

must be freed from all these heretical notions. 
— Epiphanius affirms that "no creature is to 
be worshipped." This is an error, and must 
be expunged. — Jerome asserts that " all Bish- 
ops are equal ; " he must here be amended. — 
And further, the Fathers are not only to be 
corrected by subtraction, but by addition also. 
Thus Cyprian is to be made say, " hie Petro pri- 
matus datur," and " qui cathedram Petri, 
super quam fundata est Ecclesia, deserit, in 
Ecclesia se esse confidit ? " 1 against his own 
practice, for which he has been condemned by 
Bellarmine as guilty of mortal sin. All this 
is not wonderful, since the Church of Rome 
has not spared even the Word of God. In the 
Roman index 2 we read " deleatur illud ' Abra- 
ham fide Justus,' " which is the assertion of 
St. Paul." 3 

9. The subject becomes wellnigh endless, if I 
am seriously to set myself on specifying all the 



1 See Dr. James On the Corruption of the True Fathers, p. 
114, ed. 1688. 

2 P. 48. See other passages of Scripture, expunged by 
the Church of Rome, in Dr. James's work, p. 427. 

3 Gall. iii. 6. Rom. iv. 3. — The quotation in the text is 
from Archd. Wordsworth's Letters to M. Gondon on the de- 
structive character of the Church of Rome both in Religion and 
Policy, 1847, p. 252-4. 



152 ROxME AND ENGLAND. 

grounds of my repugnance to that Communion 
which you have elected for your own. " The 
characters of the supremacy of the 13th and 
14th Centuries are stereotyped by Papal In- 
fallibility" . . . Nothing therefore that has 
ever been done by Papal authority may be any 
longer called in question. Such a monstrous 
doctrine as the following, — that Popes can de- 
pose Princes from their Thrones, and release 
subjects from their obedience: — such a blas- 
phemous doctrine as this, — that the Pope by 
his plenary power can remit all sins : — such a 
wicked principle as, — that all heretics are to 
be extirpated by the civil power : — such a pat- 
ent fiction as the following, — that all the prop- 
erty of the Church belongs to the Pope, so that 
he can dispose of it as he ivill: — such prepos- 
terous assumptions as, — that all the Councils 
of the Church have, and can have, authority 
only from the Pope's Confirmation: — that all 
Bishops and Clergy have mission and power to 
minister by the authority of the Pope alone : — 
that all jurisdiction proceeds from the Pope : 
— all these doctrines, I say, no Romanist may 
dfeny. Hear Pope Bonifacius VIII. (1303), 
beginning a public decree in these words : 
"Being set above Kings and Kingdoms by a 
Divine pre-eminence of power, ice dispose of 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 153 

them as we think fit" In the preceding year 
(1302) in a famous Bull, he had said, — " We 
declare, affirm, define, and pronounce that it is 
altogether necessary for salvation, that every 
human creature should be subject to the Roman 
Pontiff" I end as I began, by inviting your 
attention to the memorable sentence of Pope 
Gregory VII., (1076,) whereby he released the 
subjects of Henry IV. from their allegiance to 
that Emperor : — "In behalf of Almighty God, 
the Father, and the Son, and the Holy 
Ghost, — I deny to Henry the government of 
the whole Realm of Germany and Italy, and 
release all Christians from the bond of the oath 
which they have made or will make to him, and 
forbid any one to serve him as if he were a 
King" 2 . . . I think this may suffice. If it 
strikes you as attractive, or even tolerable, that 
all this must be acquiesced in on pain of eter- 
nal banishment from the presence of Almighty 
God, I can only say that I am very sorry for 
you. Again, — Is Rome a spiritual, or apoliti- 
cal power ; — which ? 

10. If I were bent on prolonging this dis- 
cussion, I might easily draw out a most heavy 
charge against your adopted Communion of 



Hussey, Rise of the Papal poiuer, passim. 



154 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

having added fresh articles to the Faith, — not 
for the first time in 1854 ; and for requiring 
assent to them under pain of anathema. (I 
allude especially to the Creed of Pope Pius 
IV.) I should have to reproach the Church 
of Rome with setting an example of schism by- 
setting up rival Bishops in our sees at home 
and abroad, — in defiance of the Canons of 
(Ecumenical Councils, and the Laws of all the 
Churches. 1 A Bible withheld from the people, 

— and Divine Service in an unknown tongue, 

— alas, it would be a long, long catalogue, if 
I were to undertake to give you every reason 
why I think the Church of England an infi- 
nitely better Church to live and die in than the 



1 " As the imperial City of Constantinople was the centre 
of Catholic communion in the East, so once was imperial 
Rome in the West, until her Bishops affecting an universal su- 
premacy, she became the author of her own schism, by which 
she still divides the Christian world. Then, it may be, for 
her punishment, she was permitted to wander from the 
straight and narrow path of scriptural truth, into the broad 
road of error ; adding, at her own will, novel and strange 
doctrines, unknown to the Apostles as articles of Faith ; 
until, in this our day, as if to perpetuate her character of 
the Great Schismatic, she has invaded the rights of other 
independent Churches, setting up altar against altar, and 
pretended Bishops, who, being secundi, are by the nominal 
rule of the Church, nulli." — Life of Bp. Ken, by a Layman, 
1854, p. 132. 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 155 

Church of Rome ! Moral considerations would 
have to be introduced also ; and I should feel 
it my duty to direct your attention to Spain, 
and to other parts of France and Italy besides 
Paris and Rome. But I desist. To my next, 
which will be a much longer letter, I beg to 
invite your very special attention. One only 
question do I feel disposed to put to you at part- 
ing : — On what possible principle can you de- 
fend the universal practice of your new friends 
of rebaptizing, — insisting upon the Rebaptizch 
tion, — of such members of the Church of 
England as seek to unite themselves to the 
Church of Rome ? . . . I have heard that 
anxiety is feigned lest the person so seeking 
admission into another branch of Christ's Holy 
Catholic Church should never have been duly 
baptized. But, two awkward considerations 
here present themselves : — First, Why should 
an English Priest be supposed to be a less 
trustworthy agent than any old woman, — to 
whom the Romish (not the English !) Church 
expressly gives authority, in case of need, to 
administer the Sacrament of Baptism ? And 
secondly, since (according to the Romish 
view,) Intention is necessary to the validity of 
a Sacrament, what security have you that, in 
any given instance, the Sacrament of Baptism 



156 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

is administered, by a Romish Priest, at all? 
.... I am really curious for an explanation. 
Let me only request you to disabuse your mind 
of the notion that the alleged plea of doubt is 
the true reason why Rome pursues this sinful 
course. For, even when a very learned Eng- 
lish Doctor, (as in a well-known instance,) has 
given a written assurance that the Sacrament 
was duly administered by his own hands, Rome 
has insisted on the repetition of the solemn 
rite. Now, you are of course aware that Re- 
iteration of Baptism is sacrilege. 

P. S. — I feel myself constrained to give a 
separate and emphatic place to two other ob- 
jections which I entertain against the Popish 
system. So diverse are they in their char- 
acter from those which have been hitherto 
specified, that they vindicate for themselves a 
place apart. I request your best attention ; 
promising not to abuse your patience, and 
withal solemnly declaring that the considera- 
tions which I am about to allege, weigh so 
powerfully with me, as literally to extinguish 
the force of almost everything which the most 
able of your controversialists are wont to ad- 
duce on the side of Rome. Listen ! 

1. I abhor Popery because it is demonstrably 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 157 

not so much a Religious Method as a Politi- 
cal Power. You have but to acquaint your- 
self ever so little with that teaching which is 
specially designated as " Ultramontane" to 
convince yourself that it is as I say. The 
one doctrine that " Popes can depose Princes 
from their thrones, and release subjects from 
their obedience ; " — this one doctrine, resting as 
it does on the right claimed by Popes Nicholas 
II., Alexander III., Innocent III. and IV., 
Gregory VII. and IX., John XXII., and Pius 
V., — this one tenet, I say, is enough with me 
not only to make Popery intolerable, but to 
make any " concordat " between ourselves and 
Rome simply impossible. 1 The Divine Head 
of the Church hath said, "Render unto Caesar 
the things which be Caesar's " : and " My 
Kingdom is not of this World." The secular 
ambition which not only affects temporal 
power, but sets itself up against duly con- 
stituted authorities, and claims dominion over 
anointed kings, is by all loyal citizens to be 
dreaded as well as detested and abhorred. 
Such teaching is opposed to the whole spirit 
of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as that Gospel 



1 The learned reader is referred to the teaching of the 
Bull's Unigenitus and Unam Sanctam. 



158 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

was interpreted by Fathers and Councils, with- 
out a single exception, for the first thousand 
years of the Church's History. 

2. My other objection is a very solemn one. 
It is based on the proved results of Romanism : 
the known effect of the system on the heart 
and on the life of the individual : (" By their 
fruits ye shall know them," — said the Author 
of Nature and of Grace.) And I do deliber- 
ately declare Romanism to be a Demoralizing 
principle. 

I am saying that Deceit and Guile, — Du- 
plicity, Equivocation, Untruthfulness, — these 
are invariably observed to be the fatal concomi- 
tants of the downward course which you have 
been pursuing ; and which you now have the 
audacity to invite me to pursue also. I am 
saying that Falseness, in one or more of its 
many shapes, is the invariable characteristic of 
a lapse from Anglo-Catholicism to the Romish 
schism. And I further declare this to be one 
of its darkest features. There is observed to 
come a loss of high moral Principle. The Fifth 
Commandment, — (whose weakened sanctions 
the Baptist came to re-inforce, lest God should 
" come and smite the earth with a curse " *) 

1 Mai. iv. 5, 6. 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 159 

— the Fifth Commandment, I say, is, on 
such occasions, habitually set at naught. A 
very boy, a mere girl, will dare to put him- 
self, herself, secretly into communication with 
a Popish Priest : and he, clandestinely, will 
dare to entertain the overture. Nay, your 
Popish Priest will be so wicked as to tamper 
with the faith of a youthful Anglican, — in 
defiance of the known wishes of Parents or 
Guardians. Worst of all, — he will pretend 
that he does this in the sacred name of Reli- 
gion ; — in the blessed name of Him who or- 
dained the Fifth Commandment, and whose 
very Name is Truth. 

Yes, sir ! This indifference to, — this dis- 
regard of, — this systematic contempt for, 
Truth, is the plague spot of your hateful sys- 
tem. The very power of discerning and appre- 
ciating Truth, — the very love of Truth as 
Truth, — seems to dwell feebly with members 
of the Romish Communion. Witness the 
grossness of the whole system of ' Relics,' 
6 Indulgences,' c modern miracles,' — as well as 
the arguments whereby they are extenuated if 
not defended ! Witness the way in which 
documents and monuments of antiquity of 
whatever kind are by Rome misrepresented, 
tampered with, kept back, falsified, suppressed ! 



lfiO ROME AND ENGLAND. 

Witness, — I may truly say, — the damaged 
condition of everything which Rome even so 
much as touches ! Witness, above all, (as I 
began by saying,) the deteriorating effects of 
Popery on the human heart and conscience, — 
its destructive effect on the daily life, from 
which Truthfulness seems actually to disap- 
pear ! As it is the sure token that the Leprosy 
has begun, when Deceit begins conspicuously 
to manifest itself in the Homeward disposition, 
so is it certain that, unless it be checked, it 
will spread until the whole man is " unclean " ; 
until from the crown of the head to the 
sole of the foot, there is no soundness in him. 
The first step in this downward progress was 
probably Disobedience to Parents. Next came 
Falsehood, (whose name, like that of its 
author, is Legion,) in a multitude of shapes. 
The just retribution for all this is, that, in the 
end, the foolish heart is darkened ; and be- 
cause the Pervert would not retain God in his 
knowledge, the weak and wayward one is by 
God forsaken, and given over to believe a 
Lie. 



HOME AND ENGLAND. 161 



LETTER III. 

The only real question remains yet to be discussed: 
namely, the validity of the papal claim to univer- 
sal supremacy. — five theories briefly considered. 

— the patriarchal claim. — the claim of conver- 
sion. — the claim of immemorial possession. — the 
claim from infallibility. — the claim, based on scrip- 
ture and fathers, of being the successor of st. 
peter. — no primacy of authority given to st. peter. 

— st. peter not the founder of the church of 
rome : nor the first bishop of rome : nor recognised 
as having any supremacy by early councils and 
fathers. — cyprian's evidence. — conclusion. 

Sir, — It is high time to bring the question 
before us to a definite issue. Not one of the 
various considerations urged in your letter, to 
which I have hitherto directed rny remarks, 
affects the real question before us, in the least ; 
and I am surprised that you, and the many 
others, (I thought they had been chiefly young 
ladies?) — who adopt the same language, do 
not perceive how utterly inconsequential and 
weak it is. Whether the primitive Liturgies 
are full of Romish doctrine, or whether they 
are not ; — on which side of the Alps there is 
more of sanctity or of ungodliness ; — whether 
11 



162 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

or no Images wink, and whether or no they 
ought to be worshipped even if they do wink : 

— all such points as these are absolutely irrel- 
evant to the question which you bring before 
me. You urge me to become a Roinanist. In 
other words, you invite me to look upon the 
English Church as a simply schismatic body ; 

— a body to which it is impossible to belong 
without such imminent danger to one's soul, 
that every one of you ought positively to with- 
draw himself from it. You invite me further 
to show by my acts that I think the only way 
of safety is to seek admission into the Church 
of Rome. This, if I understand you rightly, 
is the actual gist of your letter. 

Now, in order to persuade me to take so 
serious and solemn a step as this ; in order to 
induce me to reverse my existing convictions, 
and then to set up my own private judgment 
against the collective wisdom, learning, and 
piety of the English Church ; it is clear that 
no small amount of logic is required on your 
part. It will not suffice to show me that the 
advantages of Romanism, — the disadvantages 
of Anglicanism, — are manifold. The retort 
is obvious and fatal. It will not suffice to ap- 
peal to the fact that the Bishop of Rome now 
claims supreme authority over all the Churches 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 163 

of Christendom. That is precisely the circum- 
stance which underlies the whole question, — 
the very claim which requires to be made out. 
In a word. The one thing you have to es- 
tablish is the validity of the Romish claim to 
universal Supremacy: or at least, you have 
to demonstrate the rightful authority of the 
Bishop of Rome over the English Church. I, 
for my part, as you are aware, assert that " the 
Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this 
Realm of England." x You, with your new 
friends, adopt precisely the opposite language : 
nay, the most expert of your controversialists 
declare that the Pope's Supremacy is the fun- 
damental doctrine of Romanism. " On this 
doctrine," (says Bellarmine,) " the whole 
cause of Christianity," (he means Romish 
Christianity,) " depends." 2 It is, in fact, 
" the essence of the whole Romish system. 
Take away the assertion of S. Peter's Su- 
premacy and the Pope's equal power, (as his 
successor,) and the Roman Church is then no 
more to the rest of Christendom than the 
Church of Ethiopia or Armenia would be ; ex- 

1 Art. xxxvii. 

2 " De qua re agitur cum de Primatu Pontificis agitur 1 
brevissirne dicam ; de surnmd rei Christianas." — Yol. i. p. 
494, ed. 1577, — quoted by Archd. Wordsworth. 



164 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

cept so far as one branch might be more pure, 
enlightened, or efficient than another." x The 
validity of Rome's pretensions, then, in this 
respect, is the one thing which you have to 
establish. 

I must give you yet another warning. It 
will not suffice for you, in order to make out 
the validity of the Papal claim, to do any of 
the following things : one or more of which 
every writer has done, who has hitherto written 
on your side of the question, viz., (1) You 
may not assume that " a Primacy of authority " 
is given in Scripture to St. Peter over the rest 
of the Apostles. You must prove it. (2) You 
must not invite me to accept the remarkable 
favour which occasionally attends the mention 
of St. Peter's name in the Gospels and Acts, 
as any proof whatever of a thing with which 
I deny that it has any manner of connection ; 
viz., the claim to Infallibility, and universal 
Supremacy set up, in modern times, by the 
Bishop of Rome. (3) I must caution you 
against quoting, (as Dr. Wiseman has been 
convicted of doing,) 2 spurious writings in sup- 



1 Ilussey, p. xxx. 

2 See Rev. W. Palmer's Vth Letter to Wiseman, (1841,) 
p. 15 to p. 32. 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 165 

port of the Romish side of the question. (4) You 
must be on your guard against urging in argu- 
ment, divorced from their context, short scraps 
of the Fathers, which prove on examination 
to be garbled extracts which entirely misrepre- 
sent the mind and meaning of the author. 1 



1 I allude to such a collection of shreds and patches as 
Archd. Wilberforce accumulates at p. 131, — references taken 
wholesale by himself, (as he informs us,). and by Mr. Allies, 
from Passaglia "De Praerogativis B. Petri." Such utterly 
worthless specimens of patristic lore, again, as Mr. Allies 
sweeps together at p. 11, and indeed throughout his book, 
are what I here condemn. The strange underlying fallacy 
of these writers, and indeed of all who have taken the same 
side of the question, is, — that laudatory expressions con- 
cerning St. Peter are one and all assumed to be, ipso facto, 
applicable to the seat of the Papacy. And again, that lan- 
guage of high respect used concerning Kome, is tantamount 
to a recognition of the modern claims of its Pontiff to spir- 
itual supremacy. This, and the further fallacy that wher- 
ever the Church is anywhere, and by anybody, mentioned, 
the Romish branch of the Church is exclusively intended, — 
really makes the sum of what nine-tenths of those who 
have written on the other side will be found to have deliv- 
ered concerning the Romish question . . . Their method, 
to describe it in a few words, seems to he this : — Given the 
truth of all Romish Doctrine, how may the language of Scrip- 
ture, and the facts of Antiquity be warped into agreement 
with it ? Now, our method is precisely the reverse of this. 
Assuming Holy Scripture to be worthy of all acceptation ; 
and assuming that deference is due to Antiquity, how does 
Modern Romanism appear when tested by this twofold standard? 



166 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

(5) You must be denied the privilege of quot- 
ing in English what was originally written in 
Greek or in Latin ; with a vague reference at the 
foot of the page to " S. Cyprian," " S. Opta- 
tus," " S. Ambrose," and so forth: for I posi- 
tively declare that such cheap, (and generally 
incorrect^) Patristic lore is wholly inadmissible 
into so grave a question. We must really be 
allowed to see clearly, and be quite sure of, 
what it is we are talking about. Under these 
very obvious conditions, I shall be happy to 
attend to everything you are pleased to urge. 

(6) What need to say that I will put up with 
no fanciful analogies, as if they were proofs ? 
This is too grave a question to be settled on 
sentimental grounds. We are not now going 
to discuss such an expression as the " Rock of 
Peter," or the " Chair of Peter," or the " See 
of Peter," or the " Boat of Peter," or any 
other mere nourish of rhetoric, as if it were 
an argument. However laudatory the language 
which, in the fifth or sixth century, may have 
been applied to the Romish Church, it is clearly 
no proof that the Bishop of Rome enjoyed any 
supremacy whatever over the other Churches 
of Christendom. — None of these tricks of 
controversy will I allow you to palm off upon 
me for an instant. You may not imitate Arch- 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 167 

deacon Wilberforce, in the logically worthless 
volume with which he went over to Rome : 1 
nor Mr. Allies, (who is a jet greater offender 
in the same way,) in the little book which he 
put forth when he apostatised. 2 I refuse to 
admit any such methods as valid. 

Do not imagine from this preamble that 1 
am about to inflict upon you a complete argu- 
ment against the Papal claim to universal 
authority. I am about to do nothing of the 
kind. Our Anglican position has at least this 
advantage in all discussions of this nature ; 
namely that the burthen of proofs rests wholly 
with yourselves. The hollowness of the pre- 
tensions generally set up, and the insufficiency 
of the arguments generally urged, are easily 
shown. I must nevertheless proceed methodi- 
cally, and cannot dismiss the subject without 
reminding you that those who argue on your 
side of the question are bound to make out 
their case on some definite ground. What 
you have to prove is the Papal author- 
ity in England, and you are at liberty to 

1 An Inquiry into the Principles of Church Authority ; or Jly 
Reasons for recalling my Subscription to the Royal Supremacy. 
8vo, 1854. 

2 The See of S. Peter the Rock of the Church, the Source of 
Jurisdiction, and the Centre of Unity. 12mo, 1855. 



168 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

adopt whichever of the following theories you 
please : — 

I. You may pretend that England belongs to 
the Western Patriarchate, and that the Pope is 
the Patriarch of the West : — the plea of 
Patriarchal Authority. 

II. Or you may pretend that the right of 
authority was acquired by the Bishop of Rome, 
and conveyed to his successors in perpetuity, 
on the ground of having converted England : — 
the plea of Conversion. 

III. Or you may assert that he has a pre- 
scriptive right to jurisdiction in England, 
grounded on immemorial Possession. 

IV. Or you may set up the Pope's Infalli- 
bility ; and infer the deference due to him as 
an unerring guide. 

V. Or lastly, you may take your stand on 
Scripture and the Fathers : and attempt to 
prove the universal Pastorship of the Bishop 
of Eome, as the successor of St. Peter : — the 
plea of Universal Authority. 

Let it only be remarked concerning all these 
good reasons, that they are somewhat incon- 
sistent with one another. If the Bishop of 
Rome claims to be Universal Bishop, then, 
why talk of his Patriarchal jurisdiction ? much 
less of his right based on our Conversion. If 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 169 

he has Rights, — then, why appeal to his pre- 
tended immemorial Possession? — I proceed 
briefly to refute the five pleas already stated. 

I. The plea of the Pope's Patriarchal Au- 
thority over England is easily disposed of. 
We appeal to the celebrated language of the 
Council of Nicsea (a.d. 325) : — " Let the an- 
cient usages prevail, which are received in 
Egypt," &c. " And .... let the privileges 
of the Church be preserved." 1 We appeal 
also to the decree of Ephesus : — "No bishop 
shall interfere in other provinces which have 
not, from the very first, been under himself 

and his predecessors But if any one 

should have taken (a province), or have caused 
it to be subject to him by compulsion, he shall 
restore it." 2 — " To these canons of Nicasa 
and Ephesus," (says Palmer,) " we appeal 
with confidence. They establish all jurisdic- 
tions existing at the time when they were 
enacted ; they forbid all usurpation of author- 
ity by one Church over another. The British 
Churches were perfectly independent of Rome 
in the time of those synods : it was therefore 
unlawful for Rome to assume authority over 
them. That authority was an abuse ; it ought 

1 Routh, Opuscula, vol. i. p. 358. 2 JUd. pp . 100-1. 



170 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

to have been relinquished by Rome : it was 
rightfully corrected by our Churches." 1 

For, (as Fullwood, following Bramhall and 
many others, has shown,) the territorial inde- 
pendence of the English Church is matter of 
historical notoriety. It is a simple fact that 
the ancient Patriarchate of Rome did not in- 
clude England. " According to Ruffinus, (a 
Roman, who lived not long after the Council 
of Nicsea,) it was limited to the suburbicary 
cities ; i. e. a part of Italy, and their Islands, 
Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica : much less did it 
ever pretend to Britain, either by custom, 
canon, or edict of any of our princes." 2 But 
I must be content to refer you on this subject 
to the pages of our own learned Bingham. 3 
What need to remind you of the answer of the 
British Bishops to Augustine the Monk ? their 
bold and emphatic assertion of their ancient 
independence ? This evidence, remember, is 
express, and ought to be decisive, — if the tes- 
timony of History be worth anything at all. 

The Pope, I repeat, must say nothing about 



1 Even the plain language of the Canon has been trifled 
with by Bellarmine and others. See Fullwood, pp. 34^5. 

2 Fullwood, p. 35. 

8 Eccl Antiq. Book ix. ch. i. §§ 9-12. 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 171 

his claim as a Patriarch if he pretend to be 
Universal Bishop, — for the two claims are in- 
consistent ; as Fullwood, (after Bramhall,) has 
convincingly shown. 1 

II. And next, for the plea of Conversion, it 
may happily be disposed of in a few words. 
Even supposing that Christianity had been, 
in fact, introduced into England, and our 
Churches founded, by missionaries from Rome, 
— by what process of reasoning is it concluded 
that such circumstances necessarily or equit- 
ably confer on the see of Rome a right of Pa- 
triarchal jurisdiction? Gratitude, and love, 
and veneration, would doubtless have been 
due, in large measure, to the benefactor on the 
part of the benefited : " but on what principle 
of equity it can be proved that such a nation, 
when formed into Churches, and governed by 
its own Bishops, is bound to place itself under 
the jurisdiction of this benefactor, — it would 
be difficult to conceive." The testimony of 
the early Church, and the experience of his- 
tory, point unmistakably the other way. 2 
" The argument," (says Fullwood,) " must 



1 Ibid. pp. 37-8. 

2 Palmer's Episcopacy of the British Churches vindicated 
against Dr. Wiseman , (1840 J eh. xiii. 



172 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

run thus : If the Bishop of Rome was the 
means of the English Church's Conversion, 
then the English Church oweth obedience to 
him and his successors. We deny both propo- 
sitions : — (a) that the Pope was the means of 
our first Conversion : (b) that if he had been 
so, it would follow that we now owe obedience 
to that see." * 

" Eusebius, who wrote nearer to the time of 
the Apostles than Bede did to that of Eleuthe- 
rius, declares that Britain was visited by the 
Apostles themselves ; and Theodoret says 
that St. Paul preached the Gospel here." 2 
" Our adversaries, while insisting that the 
grace of Orders was communicated to this 
Island by Gregory, do not seem to be aware 
that the very words of Pope Gregory estab- 
lish two points in direct opposition to the right 
of Ordination claimed by the Roman see : first, 
that the bishops of England were ' always for 
the future,' to appoint and consecrate their 
Metropolitans ; secondly, that those Metropoli- 
tans were to consecrate the Bishops of their 
Provinces. ' We concede to thee,' (he writes 
to Augustine,) ' the use of the pallium,' (the 



1 Roma Rait, &c, pp. 28-29. 

2 Palmer, ut supra, p. 117. 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 173 

well-known mark of authority as vicar of the 
Roman see,) ' that you may ordain in several 
places twelve Bishops to be subject to your 
jurisdiction, since the Bishop of the city of 
London ought always in future to be conse- 
crated by his own synod^ and to receive the 
pallium of honour from this apostolical see. 
We wish you also to send a Bishop to the city 
of York, who also is to ordain twelve Bishops, 
and to enjoy the honour of Metropolitan.' 
Thus the ordination of the bishops and metro- 
politans of England was given, according to 
the canons, not to the Roman see, but to the 
English Church itself. The present discipline 
of our churches is therefore entirely conform- 
able to that which Pope Gregory instituted. " 1 
III. The plea of Prescription, and Immemo- 
rial Possession, is simply untrue. "For 
nearly twelve centuries, the Bishops of Rome 
did not confirm or ordain our Metropolitans ; 
nor did they acquire such powers over our 
Bishops, till the 14th century, and then only 
by the aid of the temporal power. These 
powers were not given to the see of Rome by 
any (Ecumenical Council, nor by any English 
or Irish Synod. They were usurped, as a mat- 

i Ibid. pp. 118-19. 



174 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

ter of Divine Right, by the Roman Pontiff; 
who, on the same ground, claimed the right 
of confirming or naming all Bishops, Metro- 
politans, and Patriarchs whatever." 1 

The facts of the case, (for the full establish- 
ment of the details you must be referred else- 
where,) are briefly these: — "The English 
Church, according to Pope Gregory, was al- 
ways to ordain its own prelates without having 
recourse to Rome ; two Bishops of Rome as- 
sisted in the maintenance of the English hie- 
rarchy on occasions of absolute necessity ; 
another uncanonically disturbed the jurisdic- 
tion of an English metropolitan : the sees of 
Canterbury and York, at a late period, volun- 
tarily made the see of Rome the arbiter of 
their disputes : the metropolitans of Ireland 
never received palliums from Rome till the 
twelfth century." This is what Mr. Palmer 
has proved in opposition to Cardinal Wiseman ; 
" and most assuredly, it is altogether insuffi- 
cient to prove the patriarchal jurisdiction of 
the Roman see in general over our churches ; 



1 Palmer's Jurisdiction of the British Episcopacy vindicated, 
pp. 80-1. The reader is particularly invited to read the de- 
tailed examination of the question contained in Sect. ix. pp. 
99-115. See also what follows, down to p. 138 ; the end of 
Sections x. and xi. 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 175 

or in particular, to show that the ordinations 
of our bishops or metropolitans in any degree 
belonged to the Bishop of Rome." 

You may like to have a more detailed and 
definite statement of this matter. " From the 
time of the Apostles till the twelfth century 
of our era, amongst all the metropolitans of 
our churches, only two individuals were conse- 
crated by the Bishop of Rome or his legates. 
There is not a trace of such ordination in our 
churches during the ages which elapsed previ- 
ously to the arrival of Augustine. Pope Gre- 
gory did not claim the ordination of that 
prelate, but wrote to the Bishop of Aries to 
consecrate him bishop, and afterwards directed 
that in all future times the metropolitans of 
England should be appointed by their own pro- 
vincial synods, as the sacred canons enjoin. 
And accordingly, out of forty-one archbishops 
of Canterbury, from a.d. 597 to a.d. 1138, 
only two were consecrated by the Bishop of 
Rome, namely, Theodore of Tarsus in 668, 
and Plegmund in 889 ; the former of whom 
was only so ordained in a case of absolute ne- 
cessity .... Of the twenty-seven archbishops 
of York who lived from a.d. 625 to a.d. 1119, 
not one was ordained by the Roman Pontiff or 
his legates. In the twelfth century, in conse- 



176 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

qucnce of disputed elections, (which contend- 
ing parties referred to Rome,) the Roman 
Pontiffs took occasion gradually to usurp the 
ordination of our metropolitans ; but even in 
1162, and in 1234, Thomas a Becket and Ed- 
mond Rich were elected and consecrated in 
England according to the ancient custom. 
Therefore the Bishop of Rome has no imme- 
morial right to consecrate our metropolitans. 

" Nor has he any immemorial right to con- 
firm their elections ; for the learned Roman 
Catholic Thomassinus has proved, that the 
metropolitans of Prance, England, Spain, and 
Africa, up to the year 800, were not confirmed 
by the Roman patriarch, but by their own pro- 
vincial synods. In particular he shows that 
the confirmation and ordination of metropoli- 
tans in England were reserved to the English 
Church itself, by Pope Gregory ; and that the 
confirmation of the Papal See was not to be 
waited for. In fine, he proves, that the con- 
firmation and consecration of the metropoli- 
tans and bishops of the West, by the bishops 
of Rome, commenced in the tenth and eleventh 
centuries, in consequence of references being 
made to Rome to determine doubtful or dis- 
puted elections. It does not seem, indeed, 
that there is any clear instance of the Pope's 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 177 

confirming the elections of English metropoli- 
tans, till the time of Richard, Archbishop of 
Canterbury, in 1174, and Hubert in 1194 ; in 
both which cases, the elections were disputed, 
and the difference referred to Rome. In the 
following century similar disputes afforded an 
opportunity to the popes to usurp the confirma- 
tion and even the election of English metro- 
politans. 

" So far were the Roman pontiffs from con- 
firming the elections of our bishops and metro- 
politans generally in those ages, that they did 
not even confirm in cases when Bishops were 
translated, and in which their interference 
would have been especially called for, had they 
possessed any power over our episcopal elec- 
tions. On this subject Thomassinus has proved 
that in the time of Charlemagne and his suc- 
cessors, the Gallican and the German churches 
always enjoyed the ancient right of making 
translations ; and the Anglican likewise 

" We, therefore, conclude that the Roman 
Pontiff has no right, by immemorial or ancient 
custom, either to ordain or to confirm our 
metropolitans or bishops." 1 

1 Palmer, ubi supra, p. 124 to p. 131. — For the authori- 
ties, &c. adduced by the learned writer, his work must be 
referred to. 

12 



178 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

Yet another word on this head : for the sin- 
gular phenomenon is before us of foreign juris- 
diction, de facto if not de jure, submitted to in 
the 13th and two following centuries. Now it 
is much to be noticed, — 

(1) That during the 13th and two following 
centuries, our Clergy were ignorant of the an- 
cient canons ; the only collections then known 
being those of Gratian and Gregory IX., which 
included and were based on the false Decretals. 
It is not to be wondered at, that under such 
circumstances, our Clergy did not object to the 
papal confirmation of metropolitans, or to the 
assumption of jurisdiction in other respects. 
They imagined that they were acting on the 
canons and precedents of the purest antiquity 
in so doing ; while in reality they were merely 
guided by a series of forgeries of the eighth or 
ninth centuries. And as our bishops were thus 
entirely unconscious of their rights or duties 
in reference to the See of Rome, their acquies- 
cence could not afford any sanction to its 
usurpations." 2 

But (2) the Romish dominion, even down 
to a late period, was not submitted to without 
remonstrance or opposition. Instead of indirect 

1 Palmer, ut supra, pp. 132-3. 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 179 

historical evidence, hear William the Conqueror 
addressing Pope Gregory VII., who had claimed 
him as a feudatory of the Papal See : — " Hu- 
bert, thy legate, holy Father, coming to me on 
thy behalf, has admonished me to do fealty to 
thee and to thy successors ; as well as to think 
better of the money which my ancestors were 
wont to send to the Romish Church. This last 
claim I assent to : to the former claim I assent 
not. To do fealty I neither have been willing, 
nor am I willing now ; inasmuch as neither 
have I done it in times past, nor can I find 
that my ancestors have been in the habit of 
doing it to thine." 1 

I have quoted this letter of an early king, 
because it occurs to my memory as a piece of 
evidence not commonly introduced into this 
controversy. But you are not to fancy that 
the remonstrant voices which were raised 
against the usurpations of the Papacy in this 
country, even at that late period, were confined 
to a few. As for the earlier centuries of our 
history, the records of the Church are plain 
and emphatic. Our kings and councils re- 
fused to yield obedience to persuasion, injunc- 



1 Sir H. Ellis, Original Letters, Third Series, Yol. i. See 
also Letter VIII., from Lanfranc to the same. 



180 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

tions, sentences, and legates. Our ancestors 
unanimously resisted the Papal claims of what- 
ever kind. You will find the subject carefully 
worked out by Fullwood from p. 39 to p. 160, 
(Ch. v. to Ch. xiv. inclusive,) of his admirable 
little volume. 

You are requested, in passing on, to ob- 
serve, that there remains deeply and distinctly 
graven on our ancient English Ritual the wit- 
ness of the original independence of this 
Church and nation. The wide discrepancy 
between the English and the Roman rite has 
been already noticed. By far the most im- 
portant point of discrepancy, Archdeacon Free- 
man discourses of as follows : — "The claim 
of Divine Adoration, as properly due to the 
Elements from the moment of their consecra- 
tion, was indeed inculcated on English ground, 
as elsewhere, from about the time of the Lat- 
eran Council, or perhaps even earlier. But 
there was this remarkable and important dif- 
ference between the English Church and all 
others throughout Europe, — that her regular, 
written, and authorised Ritual contained no 
recognition of that claim. The consecrated 
Bread was indeed ordered to be elevated, so 
that it might be seen by the people ; and there 
were various diocesan or episcopal injunctions 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 181 

for its being reverenced by them. But the di- 
rection which was embodied in the rubrics of 
all other Churches and monastic bodies of the 
West, for the celebrant to kneel and worship 
the Element, never found footing in those of 
the English Church ; and if not in her rubrics, 
we may be sure not in her practice either, since 
in all these points the rubric was always rigidly 
adhered to. And this peculiarity continued 
down to the very time of the Revision of the 
Offices in the sixteenth century. The Com- 
munion Offices of the various dioceses of Salis- 
bury, of York, of Hereford, or of Bangor, in 
whatever else they might differ, agreed in this 
point : — an unanimity, it must be admitted, 
most striking and even astonishing, when the 
universal prevalence of this direction elsewhere 
throughout the West, and the immense im- 
portance attached to it, are taken into consid- 
eration. 

" It clearly appears," (adds the same learned 
writer,) " that the written ritual, at any rate, 
of the English Church, retained its original 
soundness in this particular, amid the uni- 
versal corruption of the whole of Europe be- 
side. It exhibited all along in the West an 
almost perfect parallel, as far as concerned its 
letter and its authoritative contents, to the 



182 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

Liturgies of the East. The doctrine of ele- 
mental annihilation, — however proclaimed, 
almost from the very hour of its invention, 
from archiepiscopal thrones, and followed up by 
divers injunctions, based upon it, in diocesan 
decrees, — wrought no material change in the 
liturgical forms of the English Church. From 
whatever causes, the accredited ritual expres- 
sion of that doctrine, elsewhere universally 
imposed by the Roman See, found here no 
place. Viewed in its theoretic structure, the 
stream of Liturgical service in this country 
flowed almost unimpaired, in this particular, 
from the Apostolic fountain-head." 1 

It is scarcely necessary to add, " that what 
Augustine introduced was not, strictly speak- 
ing, the Roman daily Offices, at all ; but only 
a kindred, though very closely allied member 
of the family or stock of Offices to which the 
Roman belonged." 2 Archdeacon Freeman 
has in fact proved that the English and Ro- 
man ordinary Offices, though closely akin, 
were quite distinct. He shows that Cassian 
and Leo were probably co-originators of the 



1 Freeman's Principles of Divine Service, Introd. to Part 
n., pp. 84-6. 

2 Ibid. p. 41. 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 183 

Roman rite, — Cassian alone of the English, 
— but on the old Western basis : and that it 
was Cassian's rite which was brought to Eng- 
land by Augustine. But I mast refer you to 
the delightful pages 2 of that excellent ritual- 
ist and divine for the details of a subject 
which only indirectly bears on the matter in 
hand. 

IV. The argument for the Pope's universal 
authority derived from his Infallibility, need 
hardly occupy us long. It is a plea which runs 
up at once into the next ; that, namely, which 
is derived from his being the Divinely ap- 
pointed and Universal Pastor of the Church. 

Enough for my purpose to remind you that 
Rome " cannot even in theory give an answer 
to the question how individuals are to know 
for certain that she is infallible ; " nor in the 
next place where the gift resides, supposing it 
to have been vouchsafed. It neither deter- 
mines who or what is " infallible, nor why." 
Little room as there is in the Romish contro- 
versy for novelty or surprise, yet it does raise 
fresh and fresh amazement, the more we think 
of it, that Romanists should not have been 



1 Ereeman's Principles of Divine Service, Introd. to Part 
II., pp. 245-54. 



184 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

able to agree among themselves ivhere that In- 
fallibility is lodged, which is the key-stone of 
their system ! Archbishop Bramhall reckons 
no less than six distinct opinions on the sub- 
ject. " The Legate of the Pope at the Diet 
of Ratisbon, a.d., 1541, asserted that Infalli- 
bility is the personal privilege of the Pope, 
given by the words of our Lord spoken to S. 
Peter, ' Peter, I have prayed for thee.' " 1 
" Bellarmine maintains that at least the Pope 
in General Council is infallible : but even 
granting this," " yet it is not a matter of faith, 
(that is, it has not been formally determined,) 
what Popes have been true Popes ; which of 
the many de facto, or rival Popes, are to be 
acknowledged ; nor again which of the many 
professed General Councils are really so." 
. . . " The theologians of Eomanism cannot 
complete their system in its most impor- 
tant and essential point. They can deter- 
mine in theory the nature, degree, extent, 
and object of the Infallibility which they 
claim ; they cannot agree among themselves 
where it resides. As in the building of Babel, 
the Lord hath confounded their language ; 
and the structure stands half finished, a mon- 

1 P. Sarpi, v. i. p. 171, — quoted by Ilussey, p. 206. 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 185 

ument at once of human daring and its fail- 
ure." 1 

V. The favourite claim remains to be con- 
sidered. The most popular plea of all, doubt- 
less, is this last, — namely, that the Bishop of 
Eome, because he is Universal Pastor and 
Supreme Head of the Church here on earth, 
has authority over our Church of England, 
and is entitled to her submission. 

The first thing which strikes me in this plea, 
(which, unlike I. II. and III., is not particular 
in its effect but* universal,) is, that the Holy 
Eastern Church, at all events, has never ad- 
mitted, and to this hour knows nothing of 
such a claim on the part of the Bishop of 
Rome. 

Let us however consider it on its own mer- 
its. The nature of the Papal claim, then, 
seems to be of the following nature : — 

(1.) It is pretended that to St. Peter was 
given by our Lord a Primacy of Authority 
over the rest of the Apostolic Body. 



1 Newman, ubi supra, pp. 148-52. — The plea of Infalli- 
bility may be seen very closely and minutely argued in 
Fullwood's Roma Ruit, pp. 161-81. The fatal consequences 
of the fiction, (for a monstrous fiction it is,) have been 
very well drawn out by Prof. Hussey, in the Rise of the Pa- 
pal Power. 



186 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

(2.) It is pretended that St. Peter founded 
the Church of Rome. 

(3.) It is pretended that St. Peter became 
the first Bishop of that See. 

(4.) It is pretended that the pretended 
authority of St. Peter over the rest of the 
Apostles, was transmitted by St. Peter to his 
successor in the See of Pome ; and, when 
transmitted, assumed the shape of a Primacy 
of authority over the rest of the Bishops of 
Christendom. 

(5.) It is pretended that the pretended 
authority so pretended to have been transmit- 
ted, and pretended to be of such a nature, has 
descended in regular succession to every Bishop 
of that See which St. Peter is pretended to 
have founded, down to the present day. 

Shall I hesitate to declare that such a chain 
of frivolous argumentation, — endangered as 
it is at every link by a fresh improbability, — 
seems to me the very weakest instrument by 
which it was ever intended to support a se- 
rious claim? Let me briefly remind you 
that : — 

(1.) No Primacy of Authority over the rest 
of the Apostles is anywhere in the Gospel 
given by our Lord to St. Peter. A dogma, 
which was originally no part of Christ's Pe- 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 187 

ligion, but really only a " development " of the 
question " which should be the greatest among 
the disciples ? " 1 has been made into a doc- 
trine necessary for salvation ; and the condi- 
tion without which the Roman Communion 
offers no hope of Life." 2 Look the sacred 
pages through ; and although you will find a 
hint in St. Matt. x. 2, that a priority of order 
was enjoyed by St. Peter, you cannot possibly 
pretend to infer therefrom that the same Apos- 
tle enjoyed any the least priority of authority. 
Simon Peter was but primus inter pares. 
Wherever there is order of sequence there 
must be priority and there.must be posteriority ; 
and, accordingly, in the catalogues of the 
Twelve Apostles, it is three times implied, 
(St. Mark iii. 16 : St. Luke vi. 14 : Acts i. 
13,) and once distinctly stated, (St. Matth. 
x. 2,) that among them came "first, Peter." 
But, as I have already said, they were all 
twelve, (to use the words of Cyprian,) " pari 
consortio praediti et honoris et potestatis : " 3 
" endowed with an equal share of honour and 
power." 

1 S. Mark ix. 33. S. Luke ix. 46. 

2 Hussey's Rise of the Papal Power, p. xxxi. 

3 The passage in wliich this sentence occurs will be given 
in full presently. 



188 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

Again, that singular favour and honour were 
occasionally shown co St. Peter, is certain : — 
in conjunction with St. James and St. John, 
(as in St. Mark v. 37 : St. Matthew xvii. 1 : 
xxvi. 37 and 40 : ) to him in conjunction with 
St. John only, (as in St. Luke xxii. 8 :) to him 
singly, (as in St. Matthew xvi. 15-19 : xvii. 
25-27: St. Luke xxii. 32: St. John xxi. 
15-19.) He is mentioned in a very remark- 
able way in Acts v. 15. But surely you can- 
not require to be reminded that favour enjoyed 
by an Apostle is not the same thing as au- 
thority given to him ! To whom was greater 
favour shown than to St. John, " the disciple 
whom Jesus loved ? " See St. John xii. 23-25, 
(consider xxi. 20 :) and xix. 26, 27 : also xxi. 
22 : lastly, Rev. i. 1, 2, 10-18. And yet, (as 
Clement of Alexandria remarked within a 
hundred years of S. John's death) " Peter and 
James and John, after the Saviour's Ascen- 
sion, set up no claim for their own glorifica- 
tion, on the ground that they had been specially 
honoured by the Lord Himself; but they 
elected James the Just to be Bishop of Jerusa- 
lem." 1 Now, do you not see that this true 



1 Hypotyp. lib. vi : quoted by Eusebius lib. ii. 1, - 
ferred to by Hussey, ubi supra, p. xxxii. 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 189 

statement of facts is in itself conclusive against 
the idea of the divinely-bestowed Supremacy 
of S. Peter in the time of the Apostles ? — 
But further, as Cyprian has pointed out, and 
as it has been a thousand times remarked 
since, the selfsame powers were conveyed by 
our Lord to all the Apostles, in St. Matthew 
xviii. 18, and St. John xx. 21-23. All had 
the same Commission given them to teach, in 
St. Matthew xxviii. 19, 20. 

On the other hand, St. Peter is conspicuous 
for his fall, (St. Matthew xxvi. 69-74 :) for his 
inferiority in spiritual perception to St. John, 
(St. John xx. 8, compared with St. Luke xxiv. 
12 : St. John xxi. 7 :) for his imperfect faith 
on a memorable occasion, (St. Matthew xiv. 
29-31.) Once, when he spoke to our Lord, 
he received for answer, — " Get thee behind 
Me, Satan. Thou art an offence unto Me." 1 
At Antioch, St. Paul " withstood him to the 
face, because he was to be blamed ; " indeed, 
he rebuked St. ' Peter with a severity of lan- 
guage which must be admitted to be extraor- 
dinary, and quite irreconcilable with the notion 
that St. Peter enjoyed anything like a ' Pri- 
macy' in the Apostolic body. (See Gal. ii. 

l St. Matth. xvi. 23. 



190 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

11-14.) But the one passage which sets the 
question for ever at rest, is the account which 
St. Luke gives us, in the Acts of the Apostles, 
(ch. xv. 6-29,) of the part taken by St. Peter 
in the first Church Council which was held at 
Jerusalem, — a.d. 52. 

You are requested to attend specially to this 
circumstance ; because the transaction recorded 
took place subsequently to the day of Pente- 
cost, — belongs to the period when the Apostles 
were in the full enjoyment of their ecclesiasti- 
cal powers, — and exhibits them to us in their 
official character, engaged in the performance 
of one of the most august of their official acts. 
I will not enlarge upon St. Luke's brief, but 
most significant and emphatic narrative. The 
order of the Council proves to have been as 
follows : — (a) The Apostles and Elders, with 
others (v. 12) came together : (6) There was 
" much disputing : " (c) St. Peter spoke : (d) 
St. Barnabas and St. Paul spoke : (?) St. 
James, (our Lord's cousin,) — being the first 
Bishop of Jerusalem, and evidently president 
of the Council, — summed up what had been 
delivered, and gave his sentence. He evi- 
dently, — St. James the Bishop of Jerusalem, 
— presided, of right, over the Council, and 
was supreme head of the Church in Jerusa- 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 191 

lem. With whatever respect St. Peter might 
reasonably have been regarded by all present, 
it is evident that primacy of Authority as yet 
he had none /...'. And so much for the 
scriptural evidence on the subject. We can- 
not but conclude that no chief ecclesiastical 
authority was ever given by our Lord to St. 
Peter, seeing that he not only is never related 
to have exercised any, but is even exhibited to 
us in the Gospel as one over whom Ecclesias- 
tical authority was exercised. — I pass on. 

(2.) The pretence that the Church of Rome 
was founded by St. Peter is wholly destitute 
of foundation. " But even if he had founded 
it, the church of Rome was no more entitled 
to supremacy on that account than the church 
of Jerusalem. Nor was it more entitled, than 
the churches of Ephesus, Thessalonica, and 
other churches founded by St. Paul, whose 
authority was not inferior to that of St. Peter. 
Still less was it entitled to this supremacy from 
the mere circumstance, that St. Peter presided 
over the church of Rome : for the same argu- 
ment would give supremacy to every other 
church, over which either St. Peter or St. Paul 
presided." 1 

1 Marsh's Comparative View, note D. 



192 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

(3.) Equally destitute of truth is the state- 
ment that S. Peter was the first Bishop of 
Rome. For, — 

(a) St. Peter being an Apostle, can never 
have been the Bishop of any individual see. 
Four notes of difference between the Apostoli- 
cal and the Episcopal office are commonly 
enumerated ; one of which is, " universality 
of commission." 

(b) Tested by an appeal to History, the 
worthlessness of the statement becomes appar- 
ent. The Catalogue of Bucherius, (a docu- 
ment of the fourth century,) after declaring 
that St. Peter became Bishop of Rome in the 
next year after our Lord's death (!) and that 
he governed that see for 25 years, adds that he 
was succeeded by Linus, whose episcopate 
lasted for 12 y. (or rather 11 y.) 4 m. 12 d. — 
But 25+11=36; which, added to a.d. 29, 
(the year of our Lord's Crucifixion,) brings 
us to a.d. 65, — which is precisely the year 
assigned to S. Peter's martyrdom ! The sup- 
posed 25 years of St. Peter's episcopate, there- 
fore, belong not by any means to the years 
he presided over the Romish see ; but, (ac- 
cording to the showing of the most respect- 
able of your new friends,) to the beginning 
of the period during which (according to 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 193 

Romish writers) he presided over the Univer- 
• sal Church ! 

(e) The favourite escape from this difficulty 
is to feign that Linus was St. Peter's vicar : 
but, (as the late learned President of Magda- 
len points out, 1 ) those same ancient catalogues 
on which we depend for the chronology of the 
early Bishops of Rome, say nothing at all 
about the ' vicarship ' of Linus. They are ex- 
press in the statement that Linus was Bishop 
of Rome. 

(d) Lastly, the most venerable ecclesiastical 
traditions extant lend no countenance to the 
theory under review. Irenaeus, (a.d. 179,) 
does not reckon St. Peter among the Bishops 
of Rome : neither does Eusebius, (a.d. 320.) 

The last-named father does indeed state that 



1 That venerable Divine, in 1848, called my attention to 
most of what is here stated, by reading to me, or rather 
making me read to him, (for the print was too small for his 
aged eyes,) a note in the fifth volume of his own Reliquice, 

— p. 369. "You will find this worth your attention, sir; " 

— and (lest my attention should flag,) he kept tapping my 
shoulder while I read the words, — " Et velim advertas, de- 
can tatos Petri viginti quinque annos ad episcopatum per- 
tinere universal ecclesise, non unius Romanae," &c. &c. — 
The President of Magdalen reprinted that note, with im- 
portant additions and corrections, in 1853, (the year before 
his death,) in a valuable little tract, "De Episcopis." 

13 



194 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

St. Peter was the first Bishop of Antioch. 
The truth is, the Churches of Antiquity, eager 
to identify themselves with the Apostles of 
Christ, caught at any tradition by which they 
could connect their origin with the chiefest 
Saints. Hence the venerable fiction which we 
have been considering, by which it was sought 
to increase the fame and to establish the im- 
portance of the Romish See. True indeed it 
is that, in later ecclesiastical writings, the 
name of the Apostle Peter heads the series of 
the early Bishops of Pome. True that by sev- 
eral of the early Fathers the Church of Rome 
is styled the ' see of Peter,' and the like. But 
vague, ambiguous phrases, and rhetorical ex- 
pressions like these, as any unprejudiced per- 
son of good understanding must perceive at a 
glance, will not sustain the weight which it is 
proposed to lay upon them, and to which, in 
truth, they lend no countenance. In a word, 
— there is no reason for assuming that St. 
Peter was ever Bishop of Rome at all : there 
is abundant reason for supposing that he was 
not. 

(4 and 5.) Without inquiring too curiously 
into the nature of the extraordinary privilege 
supposed to have been conveyed to the first 
Bishops of Rome, or into the manner of its 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 195 

transmission, it is obvious to insist that, if it 
existed at all, unmistakable traces of its exist- 
ence ought to be discoverable in the earlier 
pages of Ecclesiastical History. If the evi- 
dence of Scripture is adverse ; if Councils and 
Fathers, for many centuries are not only silent, 
but even yield distinctly hostile testimony 
also: then, (whatever other theory may be in- 
vented in order to prop up the unfounded 
claims of the Bishop of Rome to universal 
authority,) it is plain that the usual appeal to 
Scripture and Antiquity must be abandoned. 
Let us see then briefly how the case stands. 

I suppose we cannot do better than turn 
to the history of the first four General Coun- 
cils, — Niceea, (a.d. 325,) Constantinople, (a.d. 
381,) Ephesus, (a.d. 431,) Chalcedon, (a.d. 
451,) and survey their Canons, if we would 
ascertain in what account precisely Rome was 
held in those palmy days of the Church. Now 
it is a memorable fact that at the first (Ecu- 
menical Council, (that of Nicaea,) the Bishop 
of Rome was not only not present, but he ivas 
not even represented. Turn to the Canons of 
that and the succeeding Councils ; and so far 
fronf* acknowledging the supremacy of the 
Romish see, the reverend Fathers then assem- 
bled will be found to have known nothing at 



196 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

all about it. They prescribe the limits of the 
authority of individual Churches, and show 
jealousy respecting the independence of each 
several Province. " Let the ancient usages in 
Egypt, and Libya, and Pentapolis, prevail," 
(say they) ; " that the Bishop of Alexandria 
have authority over them all, — since this is 
also the usage with the Bishop who is at Rome. 
In like manner also as regards Antioch, and in 
the other Provinces, let the privileges of the 
Churches be preserved." Cases of dispute are 
anticipated, and provided against. But no- 
where is there so much as a hint let fall that 
Rome was the centre of authority, or enjoyed 
any kind of supremacy over the rest of Chris- 
tendom. 

Nay, the very contrary is hopelessly estab- 
lished against the seat of the Papacy by the 
28th Canon of the Council of Chalcedon. 

The 150 Bishops who had met at Constanti- 
nople (a.d. 381,) having decreed that the 
Bishop of Constantinople should have prece- 
dence next after the Bishop of Rome, on the 
ground that Constantinople was " new, (or 

rather young ,) Rome," 1 the 630 Bishops who 

9 

1 Tbv fiivroL Kcjv oTavTLvov-6?„€G)g kirioKOTTOV ^x £CV r " 7Tp f ^- 
8ela T?jg riiifiq (ietu rbv ryg 'Pupyg km<7,K07rov, 6lu to eivcu (ivttjv 
veav 'Pufijjv. — Can. iii. 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 197 

met at Chalcedon 70 years after, confirmed 
the decree in the following remarkable lan- 
guage : — " We, every where following the 
decrees of the holy Fathers, and acknowledg- 
ing the Canon which has been just read of 
the 150 Bishops most beloved of God, do 
also ourselves decree and vote the same things 
concerning the privileges (ytoeo^ia^ of the 
most Holy Church of Constantinople, — Rome 
the younger ; for the Fathers, with reason, 
gave precedency to the throne of Rome the 
elder, because she was the imperial city : " 
[not, (you are requested to observe,) be- 
cause she claimed to be Divinely invested 
with Supremacy over the other Churches 
of Christendom : not because she was tra- 
ditionally accounted to enjoy any sort of Ec- 
clesiastical Primacy: nothing of the kind. 
" The fathers with reason gave precedency 
to the throne of the elder Rome, because 
she was the imperial city : " ] " and the 150 
Bishops most beloved of God, moved by the 
same consideration, awarded equal prece- 
dency to the most holy throne of Rome the 
younger, reasonably judging that the city which 
is honoured with the government and senate, 
should enjoy equal privileges with the elder 
Queen Rome ; and be magnified, like her, in 



198 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

ecclesiastical matters, having the second place 
after her." 1 

The very opposition raised to this Canon by 
the Roman legates is important : for (1) that 
opposition was not based, (as one would have 
expected,) on the plea of an infringement of 
the privileges of the Romish see, but on quite 
different grounds : and (2) it established in 
the fullest manner the mind of the whole as- 
sembly, (including the Patriarchs of Constan- 
tinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, Heraclea, and 
upwards of twenty metropolitans ;) who rati- 
fied their decree by a fresh vote. So that " this 
is beyond denial, — that we have, so late as 
the middle of the fifth century, the concurrent 
testimony of the largest assembly of bishops 
ever collected together, that the claim for the 
precedency of the See of Rome in the Chris- 
tian Church, does not rest on the vain pretence 
of the Bishop of that See being the chief or 
sole successor of St. Peter ; but simply and 
solely on this, — namely that the city of his 
bishopric had been the seat of the civil govern- 
ment" 2 

1 For convenience, the English reader is referred to The 
Roman Schism, illustrated from the Records of the Catholic 
Church, by the Hon. and Rev. H. P. Perceval, 1836, p. 42. 

2 Ibid. p. 60. 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 199 

And that this was the sole foundation of the 
Bishop of Rome's ancient " Primacy," (to 
use the words of G-eddes,) " is manifest not 
only from the 28th Canon of the Council of 
Chalcedon, but indeed from the known rule 
of all the primitive Councils in giving pre- 
cedency to Bishoprics : which rule was, that 
Bishoprics should have precedency according 
to the dignity of their Cities, by the secular 
constitution of the Empire. Accordingly, at the 
same time the Bishop of Rome was made the 
first Bishop, (because Rome was the metropo- 
lis and first city of the Empire,) the Bishop of 
Alexandria was made the second, because Alex- 
andria was then the second city of the Empire : 
and the Bishop of Antioch was made the third 
Bishop, because Antioch was then the third city. 
Antioch, to be sure, was thought to have had S. 
Peter for its first Bishop ; yet was it postponed 
to Alexandria, whose first Bishop (S. Mark) 
was only S. Peter's disciple. The Bishop of 
Jerusalem, again, had a precedency given 
him on a Christian consideration : yet was 
the secular consideration reckoned so much 
stronger, that, not only was he postponed 
to the three fore-mentioned Bishops, but he 
was continued subject to the Bishop of 
Csesarea, because that city took precedence of 



200 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

Jerusalem in the civil constitution of the 
Empire." 1 

Scarcely less important, as bearing on the 
present question, is the 9th Canon of the same 
Council of Chalcedon : which ordains that, — 
" If any clergyman have a matter against his 
own Bishop, or against another, let it be judged 
by the Synod of the Province. But if a Bishop 
or clergyman have a dispute with the Metro- 
politan of the Province, let him appeal either 
to the Exarch of the Diocese, or to the throne 
of Imperial Constantinople , and let it be there 
judged." 

Here is a canon of admitted genuineness, 
which was passed in the presence and with the 
approbation of the Roman legates ; and to 
which the Bishop of Rome, when it was re- 
ported to him, offered no objection ! " The 
undeniable meaning of it is, that from the de- 
cision of a Metropolitan and his Synod, an 
appeal lay to the Patriarch of the Patriarchate 



1 Dr. Michael Geddes, on the Papal Supremacy, (MisceU. 
Tracts, vol. ii. p. 11. I have taken some liberties with the 
style of this writer.) His "Tracts" are well worth atten- 
tion. He was Chaplain to the English Factory at Lisbon 
for ten years, and proved a very keen observer of Papal 
corruptions. His works are again referred to at the close of 
these Letters. 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 201 

in which the province was situated ; or, if the 
parties preferred it, directly to the See of 
Constantinople ; which is thus (apparently) 
by the authority of a general Council, vested 
with greater pre-eminence than any other 
bishopric has ever received from the same 
source" 1 

What at least is quite certain, the total 
silence here as to any appeal to Rome, is con- 
clusive evidence that, whatever the pretensions 
of that see may have been, they were wholly 
unrecognised so late as the middle of the fifth 
century. 

It is worse than absurd to overlook testi- 
mony emphatic and considerable as this ; in- 
finitely more important than any solitary 
expression, however strong, — of any individ- 
ual Father, however learned. Cyprian, (says 
a recent pervert,) " speaks of the Church of 
Rome as ' the root and mother of the Catholic 
Church.' " 2 Cyprian cannot with truth be 
said to do anything of the kind. On the other 
hand, the 150 Bishops at Constantinople, in 
their synodical epistle to the Western Bishops 
assembled at Rome, declared that they " ac- 



i Ibid. pp. 42-57. 

2 Arehd. Wilberforce, Principles, &c. p. 104. 



202 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

knowledged the most venerable Cyril, most 
beloved of God, to be Bishop of the Church of 
Jerusalem ) — which" (say they,) " is the 
Mother of all the Churches " 1 . . . . The de- 
crees of the first four General Councils were 
deservedly held in supreme reverence by the 
Universal Church. How shall it be thought 
credible that so very important a circumstance 
as the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome could 
have remained unknown to those many hun- 
dred Bishops of early Christendom ? 2 How, 
still more, is it conceivable that, knowing it, 
they should have met on four several occa- 
sions, at long intervals of time, and enacted 
Canons, the direct effect of which was to assert 
the independence of other dioceses ; and to 
provide for the settlement of disputes, without 
any reference whatever to the supposed neces- 
sity of an appeal to Rome ? How did it come 
to pass that the see of Rome was legislated for 
like any other see of ancient Christendom, 
without complaint or remonstrance on her 
part ? or with remonstrance — which the rest 
of Christendom overruled and set aside ? 



1 Perceval, ibid. p. 32, quoting Concil. ii. 966. 

2 At Nicasa, 318 Bishops; at Constantinople, 150; at 
Ephesus, 200 ; at Chalcedon, 630. 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 203 

I quoted just now a passage from Clement 
of Alexandria, a very early Father, " expressive 
of the sentiment of the Church on this point 
in the age of that writer, and showing that no 
such divinely-bestowed Supremacy was ac- 
knowledged by the Church then. Eusebius' 
citation of the passage is also evidence that he 
himself did not know of any Supremacy of 
S. Peter and his successors in the beginning 
of the fourth century. The writers of the 
first three centuries," (proceeds the late 
lamented Professor Hussey,) " do not recog- 
nise any such Supremacy belonging to Borne. 
They do not speak on the point in such terms 
as they must have spoken if they had held the 
same doctrine of the Supremacy which was 
held in later ages ; and in all their strong ex- 
pressions of honour to the Roman See, they just 
omit that very point which a "Papal" writer 
would have been careful to put first of all, the 
essence of the Supremacy, the Government of 
the Church by Divine Authority. 

" If Irenaeus or Tertullian had held this doc- 
trine, they could not but have expressed it, 
when they had occasion to speak of Rome as 
they have spoken. And how could S. Igna- 
tius have written an Epistle to the Roman 
Church, as he did, — without naming the Pope, 



204 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

or alluding to his authority, if such doctrines 
had been held by the Church in his time ? 
Nay, — Is it credible that an Institution of 
our Blessed Lord, of such vital moment to his 
whole Church, as this Supremacy would have 
been if it were His command, should have been 
unknown to the Church for so long, — denied 
as soon as declared, — and always resisted by 
a great part of the Church ? Is it credible that 
such men as S. Basil, S. Chrysostom, S. Cyp- 
rian, Theodoret, and the Eastern and African 
Churches generally, should have been so igno- 
rant of the true Doctrine of the Church, as not 
to have known that our Lord committed to 
the Bishop of Rome the absolute government 
of the Church, (and that too a doctrine neces- 
sary for Salvation,) if the Church had ever 
received such a command from Him ? " 1 

But we need not linger over the earliest 
ages ; still less need we adduce the language 
of strangers concerning the early Bishops of 
Rome. We may come on boldly to the end 
of the sixth century, and hear the truth at 
Rome itself from the pious lips of one of the 
greatest ornaments of the Romish See, — 
Gregory the Great. Addressing the Emperor 

1 Hussey's Rise of the Papal Power, p. xxxii.-ir. 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 205 

Mauricius, (relative to the conduct of John 
IV., Archbishop of Constantinople, a.d. 582- 
95,) Gregory says : — " It is plain to all who 
are acquainted with the Gospel, that by 
our Lord's own lips the care of the whole 
Church was committed to St. Peter, the chief 
of all the Apostles ; inasmuch as to him was 
said," — (then follows St. John xxi. 17 :) " to 
him," — (then follows St. Luke xxii. 31:) 
" to him," — (then follows St. Matthew xvi. 
18.) " Lo, he received the keys of the King- 
dom of Heaven ; to him the power of binding 
and loosing was assigned ; to him the care 
and headship of the whole Church was com- 
mitted. Yet even he is not called ' Universal 
Apostle.' Whereas that right holy man, my 
fellow-priest John, seeks to be called ' Univer- 
sal Bishop ! ' I am compelled to exclaim, ' 
the times ! the manners ! ' . . . Who then 
is this, who, contrary to the precepts of the 
Gospel, contrary to the Canons, presumes to 
usurp and assume this new title ? ... If any 
one in that Church arrogates to himself that 
name, the whole Church will fall to pieces 
(God forbid !) when he falls who is called uni- 
versal. Far be that name of blasphemy, how- 
ever, from all Christian hearts ; whereby the 
honour of all other priests suffers diminution, 



206 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

while it is senselessly arrogated to himself by 
one. 

" It was out of honour, truly, for St. Peter, 
chief of the Apostles, that by the venerable 
Council of Chalcedon the said title was offered 
to the Roman Pontiff. But never did any one 
of my predecessors consent to use this title of 
singularity ; lest, while a private title is be- 
stowed upon one Priest, all the rest should be 
deprived of the honour which is their due. 
How comes it to pass, that whereas ive covet 
not the glory of this appellation, even when it 
is offered us, this man presumes to arrogate it 
to himself, though to him it has never been 
offered at all ? " 1 

There are not a few points worthy of atten- 
tion in this passage, (a) The title of " Uni- 
versal Bishop," so far from being confessedly 
the immemorial privilege of the Roman See, 
is, in the sixth century, claimed by the Arch- 
bishop of Constantinople. (6) The Bishop of 
Rome condemns his assumption of the title, — 
not on the ground of its being an infringement 
of his own prerogative, but of the manifest 
sinfulness and impropriety of it, by whomsoever 
claimed, (c) It had never been claimed at all 

1 Gregorii M. Opera, vol. ii. p. 748 B. 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 207 

by the Bishops of Rome, but had been offered 
to them by the Council of Chalcedon : (^T) yet 
not as any admission of their acknowledged 
rights, but simply out of compliment to St. 
Peter, the reputed founder of their Church. 
(e) It had been declined when so offered, and 
had never been borne by any of Gregory the 
Great's predecessors. (/) Gregory rejects it 
with indignation, and something like horror, 
calling it a " name of blasphemy." Lastly, 
(g*) not least interesting as an inference from 
what goes before, is the distinction which 
the venerable writer, by implication, emphati- 
cally draws between the privileges accorded 
by our Saviour to St. Peter, and any privi- 
leges, (of which Gregory evidently knew noth- 
ing,) supposed to be inherent in the See of 
Rome. 

This last point is thought worthy of atten- 
tion ; because the circumstance of the entire 
absence of connection between the premises 
and the conclusion of the popular argument 
for the Papal Supremacy, is so strangely ig- 
nored by modern Romanists. Whatever is 
said in commendation of St. Peter in the Gos- 
pel is at once transferred, for some unexplained 
reason, to the occupants of the Papacy in per- 
petuity. Not only is the Romish Church called 



208 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

" the bark of Peter," but the Pope is identified 
with St. Peter himself. Remind a Romish 
priest that nothing is discoverable from Scrip- 
ture to warrant the assumption that not to 
be in communion with Rome is not to be 
within the pale of the Church Catholic, and 
you are at once met with " Tu es Petrus ; " 
or " Pasce oves meas:" just as if those 
words had been actually addressed to Pope 
Pius IX. ! 

Really, to see the prominent place given to 
the text Tu es Petrus, &c, all round the 
base of the dome of St. Peter's, and to hear 
its perpetual recurrence on the lips of Roman- 
ists, one is led to conclude that it must contain 
the pith and marrow of the whole matter. 

It was under this impression that once (by 
the help of the Indexes) I went through as 
many of the Fathers as I could conveniently 
refer to, in order to ascertain what they made 
of that famous passage. The result of my 
inquiry effectually established the following 
proposition, — That there existed in no part 
of the ancient church any tradition which con- 
nected the text in question with the Romish 
see ; or which favoured the claims of the Pa- 
pacy, even in their most moderate form. For 
(1) a surprising number of the Fathers offer 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 209 

no interpretation of that text whatever : (2) 
not a few of them expressly deny that our 
Lord on that occasion applied the word 
"Rock" to St. Peter at all! They interpret 
our Lord's words, (strangely enough,) of St. 
Peter's faith; or they declare plainly that the 
rock spoken of is Christ .... The mere 
silence of many Fathers would have been 
enough to prove that there existed no ecclesi- 
astical Tradition on the subject ; but this ex- 
press denial sets the question entirely at rest. 
(3) Some are undecided, as Chrysostom, — 
who in one place says the rock was " the faith 
of the confession ; " 2 and in two places implies 
that St. Peter was the rock. 2 (4) Those 
Fathers who consider, (with Pearson and the 
whole body of our best Divines,) that our 
Saviour meant that St. Peter was the Rock on 
which He built his Church, — even they never 
let fall a word, either directly or indirectly 
serving to identify St. Peter with the Church 
of Rome ; or connecting the famous delaration 
which our Lord made to him. with the Bishop 
of the same see. Let me briefly establish what 
I have been saying. 



1 Tovteotc, rrj iziGTEi ttjq dfioXo-yiag. Opp. vii. 548. 

2 Opp. ii. 300. vi. 124, 282. 

14 



210 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

Augustine, in his latest work, 1 says that 
when he was a Presbyter he had on one occa- 
sion interpreted St. Matt. xvi. 18, as if the 
words meant that the Church was founded 
upon St. Peter : but since that, he had often 
interpreted " this rock " of Christ, and taught 
that the Church was founded upon Him whom 
St. Peter had confessed. 2 — I am not defending 
Augustine for thus " retracting." I humbly 
think, (in common with the most learned of 
English Divines,) that this eminent Father 
was mistaken in this particular. But I re- 
quest you to attend to the deliberate dictum 
of Augustine,- — the greatest of the Fathers, 
— shortly before the end of his episcopate in 
the year a.d. 430. 

Only one other Patristric witness shall be 
quoted : but he is a most unexceptionable one, 
certainly. I allude to Gregory the Great, 
Bishop of Eome, a.d. 590-604. This writer 
explains that in his opinion Christ is the 



1 Retract. Lib. I. c. 21. Vol. i. p. 32 B. 

2 As in the following passage : — " Super hanc ergo, in- 
quit, petram quam confessus es, aedificabo Ecclesiam meam. 
Petra enim erat Christus, super quod fundamentum etiam 

ipse aedificatus est Petrus Ecclesia ergo, quse funda- 

tur in Christo, claves ab eo regni coelorum accepit in Pe- 
tro." — Tract, in Joan, cxxiv. 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 211 

"rock" spoken of in St. Matt. xvi. 18. 1 He 
further declares that the words, " Whatsoever 
thou shalt bind on earth," &c, were addressed 
by our Lord to the Universal Church? 

Such passages, coming from such a quarter, 
are really decisive of the question at issue : 
for how could Gregory, Bishop of Rome, be 
ignorant of the traditional interpretation of 
words which concerned his see so nearly, if any 
such traditional interpretation existed ? — But 
I must add yet another extract from a more 
ancient and far more important witness, Cy- 
prian, Bishop of Carthage, a.d. 250. His tes- 
timony on this subject has been often quoted, 
but often quoted incorrectly. I shall give his 
words at length ; and request you to attend to 
the very important circumstance that they are 
not thrown out incidentally ; but that they 
embody a grave and deliberate opinion. The 
following passage is found in the midst of a 
Treatise on the very question at issue, — 



1 Opera, vol. iii. p. 532 A. Compare the following pas- 
sage : — "In petra Moyses ponitur, ut Dei speeiern contem- 
platur : quia nisi quis fidei soliditatem tenuerit, divinam 
praesentiam non agnoscit. De qua soliditate Domixus ait, 
' Super banc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam/ " — Opp. 
i. 1149 B. 

2 Ibid. vol. iii. p. 387 E. 



212 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

namely On the Unity of the Church Catholic. 
Cyprian's words are, — "The Lord is speak- 
ing to Peter. ' I say unto thee,' (saith He,) 
' that thou art Peter ; and upon this rock I 
will build My Church, and the Gates of Hell 
shall not prevail against it. And I will give 
unto thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven : 
and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall 
be bound in Heaven ; and whatsoever thou 
shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in Heaven.' 
He builds His Church upon one : and although, 
after his Resurrection, He gives like power to 
all the Apostles, and says, ' As My Father hath 
sent Me, even so send I you. Receive ye the 
Holy Ghost. Whose soever sins ye remit, 
they are remitted unto them : and whose so- 
ever sins ye retain, they are retained,' — 
nevertheless, that he might make the Unity 
manifest, He ordained by His own authority 
the source of the same Unity, beginning from 
one. Wliat Peter was, that certainly the rest 
of the Apostles were also, endowed with an 
equal share of honour and power ; but the 
commencement sets out from unity, in order 
that the Church might be set before us as one. 
.... Doth he who holdeth not this unity of 
the Church, believe that he holdeth the Faith ? 
Doth he who strive th against the Church, and 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 213 

resisteth her, flatter himself that he is in the 
Church ? " i 

I am at a loss to see how a primitive Father 
could have spoken more plainly, or more em- 
phatically, against the Romish claims. Noth- 
ing can well be imagined more simple, or more 
Scriptural, than Cyprian's view. He is insist- 
ing, (with St. Paul in a well-known place, — 
Eph. iv. 5,) on the oneness of the Church ; and 
appeals to " the origination of the Church, 
which was so disposed by Christ that the 
unity might be expressed. For whereas all 
the rest of the Apostles had equal power and 
honour with St. Peter ; yet Christ did particu- 
larly give that power to St. Peter, to shew the 
unity of the Church which He intended to 
build upon the foundation of the Apostles." 2 

If Cyprian had known anything of the mod- 
ern Romish theory, how did it come to pass 
that he made no allusion to it on such an oc- 
casion as this ? 3 



1 De Cathol. Eccl. Unitat. c. iii. — I have employed the 
text as recently established in the laborious edition of J. G. 
Krabinger, (a learned Romanist.) — Tubingse, 1853. 8vo. 

2 Bp. Pearson on the Creed, Art. ix. 

3 Cyprian in another place (Ep. xxvii.) gathers from the 
same text of St. Matthew not the Bishop of Rome's su- 
premacy, but simply the Doctrine of Episcopacy ; and Firmi- 



214 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

Identically of the same opinion with Cyprian 
was Augustine ; whose very interesting and 
instructive remarks on this subject, (Augus- 
tine being so considerable a Father), have been 
transferred in a note to the foot of the page. 3 



lian, (Bishop of Csesarea in Cappadocia,) addressing Cyprian 
in another epistle, (Ep. lxxv.) in the most striking manner 
infers from our Lord's words, — not Rome's supremacy, (of 
which indeed he speaks in terms the reverse of respectful,) 
but, — that the power of remitting sins was given "to the 
Apostles, and to the Churches which they founded, (being 
sent by Christ,) and to the Bishops who were their succes- 
sors." 

1 " Inter [apostolos] pene ubique solus Petrus totius Ec- 
clesise meruit gestare personam. Propter ipsam personam, 
quam totius Ecclesise solus gestabat, audire meruit, ' Tibi 
dabo claves regni Cceloruin.' Has enim claves non homo 
unus, sed unitas accepit Ecclesice. Hinc ergo Petri excellentia 
prsedicatur, quia ipsius universitatis et unitatis Ecclesice fig ur am 
gessit, quando ei dictum est, ' Tibi trado/ quod omnibus tradi- 
tum est. Nam ut noveritis Ecclesiam accepisse claves regni 
coelorum, audite in alio loco quod Dominus dicat omnibus 
Apostolis suis." (Then follows St. John xx. 22, 23.) " Hoc 
ad claves pertinet, de quibus dictum est, ' Qua? solveritis in 
— coelo.' Sed hoc Petri dixit. Ut scias quia Petrus uni- 
versal Ecclesiae personam tunc gerebat, audi quid ipsi dica- 
tur, quid omnibus fidelibus Sanctis." (Then follows St. 
Matth. xviii. 15, &c.) 

Augustine has much to the same effect, in his Commen- 
tary on St. John, e. g. " Si hoc Petro tantum dictum est, non 
facit hoc Ecclesia. ... Si hoc in Ecclesia fit, Petrus quando 
claves accepit, Ecclesiam sanctam significavit." — Tract. 1. 
" Ei dicitur ' Tibi dabo claves regni coeloruni/ tanquam li- 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 215 

A careless reader, with Romish predilections, 
would possibly carry away from a hasty peru- 
sal of the place the notion that Augustine is 
there delivering something highly compliment- 
ary to the see of Rome ; and yet it is perfectly 
evident, both from the letter and from the 
spirit of the passage, as well as from its whole 
logical bearing, that the Church of Rome was 
not so much as in the learned writer's thoughts 
while he wrote. He meant what Cyprian 
meant, — and no other thing. Both Fathers 
require to be largely interpolated in order to 
bring out the proposed sectarian teaching, and 
to graft a modern corruption upon the ancient 
stock. 

It is much to be noticed, however, that the 
foregoing passage of Cyprian is one of the very 
passages on which Romanists most rely in sup- 
port of their claim. How have they proceeded ? 
Why truly, by falsifying in a most unprinci- 
pled manner, Cyprian's text. This subject is 
so important, and the passage in hand affords 
so apt an illustration of the controversial 
method of our opponents, as well as of the bad 

gandi et solvendi solus acceperit potestatern, cum et illud 
unus pro omnibus dixerit, et hoc cum omnibus tanquam per- 
sonam gerens ipsius unitatis. Ideo, unus pro omnibus, quia 
unitas est in omnibus." — Tract, cxviii. 



216 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

faith with which they habitually handle his- 
torical evidence, that I claim your attention 
for a few moments longer. Behold, then, the 
passage as it has been interpolated by those 
who make it their business to prove, in opposi- 
tion to Scripture and to Fathers, " the neces- 
sity of one Head of the Church upon earth, 
and to show that the Bishop of Rome is that 
one Head by virtue of his succession from St. 
Peter." 1 What follows, I have transcribed 
verbatim from the Benedictine edition of Cy- 
prian's Works : but I have taken the liberty 
of indicating the spurious additions by italics, 
and have enclosed them within brackets. 

" Loquitur Dominus ad Petrum, Ego tibi 
dico," &c. [Et iterum eidem post Resurrec- 
tionem snam dicit, Pasce oves Meas.~] Super 
\illum~] unum aedificat ecclesiam \suam, et illi 
pascendas mandat oves suasJ] Et quamvis 
Apostolis omnibus post Resurrectionem suam 
parem potestatem tribuat, et dicat," &c. "ta- 
men ut unitatem manifestaret, unitatis ejus- 
dem originem ab uno incipientem sua auctori- 
tate disposuit. Hoc erant utique et caeteri 
Apostoli quod fuit Petrus pari consortio prae- 
diti, et honoris et potestatis, sed exordium ab 

1 Bp. Pearson, ubi supra. 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 217 

imitate proficiscitur [et primatus Petro datur] 
ait [una] Christ! ecclesia, [et cathedra] una 
monstretur. [Et pastores sunt omnes, et grex 
unus ostenditur, qui ab Apostolis omnibus unan- 
imi consensione pascatur, ut ecclesia Chrisli 
una monstretur.] . . . Hanc ecclesise unitatem 
qui non tenet, tenere se fidem credit ? Qui 
ecclesise renititur et resistit, [qui catJiedram 
Petri, super quern fundata est ecclesia, deserit,] 
in ecclesia se esse confidit ? " (pp. 194-5.) 

You will, of course, exclaim, (and certainly 
with reason,) that I am making a large de- 
mand upon your good-nature when I invite you 
to receive my simple assurance of what the 
true text of Cyprian is, in opposition to the 
Benedictine editor of its works. Baluzius 
(you will say) was a man of candour and 
judgment ; and his edition of Cyprian was 
the ma/tured result of his experience and learn- 
ing. Is it likely that he would have adopted 
a corrupt text of an important passage like 
this ? 

Please to listen to a plain tale. I will not 
keep you long, and really the truth is worth 
your hearing. 

Baluzius did nothing of the sort. He easily 
convinced himself of the highly corrupt state 
of the foregoing passage, and rejected it ac- 



218 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

cordingly, — assigning his reasons for so do- 
ing, (quite overwhelming they are, be assured !) 
in his notes. 1 But before his edition of Cy- 
prian could appear, Baluzius died, at the age 
of 88, in 1718. It was not until 1724 that 
Denis de Sainte Marthe, (Superior of the Ben- 
edictines of S. Maur,) put the sheet into the 
hands of a nameless monk of the same Order ; 
and this anonymous gentleman, in 1726, pro- 
duced, (as he himself informs us in his Pre- 
face,) the edition of Cyprian which passes as 
that of Baluzius. Not a few things in the last 
named learned writer's notes, this unknown 
Komanist altered: (he would have altered 
more, if he could have done it " commode," 
he says : 2 ) and page 195, which contains the 
passage under consideration, he had the immor- 
ality ', just before sending the volume forth to 
the world? to cancel: substituting for the text 

1 See p. 545 of the (so-called) " Stephani Baluzii Notae ad 
Cyprianum." The reasons were, that the bracketed matter 
(1) is not found in MSS. of Cyprian: (2) nor in the early 
printed editions : and (3) was unknown to the ancient bish- 
ops of "Rome and others who expressly quoted this place in 
Cyprian. 

2 " Quinetiam necesse fuit (!) in Baluzii Notis non pauca 
mutare, ac plura essent mutata, id si commode fieri potuisset." 
— Ibid. 

3 This is proved by the statement in the Preface, p. x : 
also by an examination of the pagination of the notes. It 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 219 

which Baluzius had deliberately adopted, the 
interpolated text of the older editions, 1 which 
you have already seen; which Baluzius had 
rejected ; and which the editor of his labours 
kneiv to be spurious ... I trust I have said 
enough. You may convince yourself of the 
accuracy of every word I have stated by read- 
ing p. i. and the beginning of p. x. of the 
Preface, — page 545 of the [garbled] Notes of 
Baluzius, — and by examining the inside edge 
of page 195, where you will infallibly discover 
traces of the paste and the scissors. . . . 
Verily, a cause which has to be supported by 
tricks of this disreputable nature, must be a 
very rotten cause indeed ! 

Only one word more before I conclude. Will 
you be surprised to hear me say, that after 
such an instance of bad faith as this, — (and 
it is but a specimen of the method of your new 
friends!), — I habitually distrust their cita- 
tions ? I desiderate a fresh collation of the 



will be perceived that tivo leaves (i. e. four pages) were can- 
celled. The pages which intervene between p. 542 and p. 551 
bear a double pagination ; showing that these sheets were 
tampered with after the work was completed. 

1 "Reposita fuere in textu, propterea quod servata fue- 
runt in omnibus editionibus, quse in Gallia ab annis centum 
et quinquaginta prodierunt, etiam in Rigaltiana." — Ibid. 



220 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

text of the Fathers, (in all passages of a cer- 
tain kind,) by men at least of common probity, 
if not of learning and candour. The very 
Acts of Councils which bear even remotely on 
the question of the Romish Supremacy, should 
every one be examined with all the helps which 
modern learning and scholarship supply. The 
cause of Truth, (which is our cause,) has every- 
thing to gain from such a searching scrutiny 
as I desire. Rome, on the contrary, has every- 
thing to lose. I will give you a single example 
of my meaning : and with that I shall finish. 

The Primacy of the Bishop of Rome natu- 
rally resulted from the civil importance of the 
City of Rome, as the seat of Empire. This 
has been sufficiently established already, at p. 
196-98 ; and the reader is invited to turn back 
and refresh his memory in what has there been 
offered. But a Primacy of Order and Dig- 
nity is a thing quite distinct in its nature from 
a Superiority of Authority ; a wholly different 
thing from Universal Supremacy. What then 
has been the history of this ? The Romish 
claim of Universal Supremacy grew chiefly out 
of its claim to appellate Jurisdiction : and that 
claim is entirely founded on the (so-called) 
third Canon of the Council of Sardica, which 
was held in the year 347. 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 221 

Now, I do not propose to dwell on any of 
the fatal flaws in this title. I shall not insist, 
(1) on the fact that the Canons of a Council 
which was not (Ecumenical, cannot be held to 
bind the universal Church : — or (2) on the 
fact that this (so-called) Canon is contradicted 
by the Canons of other Councils confessedly 
(Ecumenical : — or (3) on the fact that the 
very language of the Canon is fatal to the in- 
ference which the Papists build upon it : for, 
(&) No decree is made ; but " if it please your 
charity: " so runs the Canon. And next, (6) 
Nothing is said about the see of Rome ; but 
" let us honour the memory of Peter the Apos- 
tle," (proceeds the Canon,) " and let Julius 
Bishop of Rome be written to." Then further, 
(c) No appeal is granted even to him; but 
only a Review is proposed : for the object of 
writing to Pope Julius is declared to be " so 
that, if need be, the cause may be tried over 
again : " and yet, (d) Not by him, but " by the 
neighbouring Bishops of the Province." Nor 
is this all. For, (e) There is no talk here of 
any already existing Canon : and still less (/) 
of any Divine Right. On the contrary, (g») 
The utmost pretended by the Papists is that 
this Council gave to the Bishop of Rome the 
power and the right of appeal. " Indeed the 



222 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

very fact that it was now decreed by a Canon 
that reference might be made to Rome, proves 
that there was no primitive rule or custom to 
that effect ; still less a Divine right belonging 
to the succession of S. Peter : for then the 
Canon would have been superfluous." 2 Last- 
ly, (A) the Romanists ought to perceive that 
there is " no authority here to evoke causes to 
Rome, nor to summon Bishops ex officio, nor to 
proceed to review and set aside the judgments 
of Councils. Such a power is plainly denied 
by these Canons ; for by defining the power 
which they give to the Pope, they exclude his 
pretensions to a much wider power." 2 — On 
none of these points however shall I now in- 
sist. 

I confine myself to the simple declaration 
that I do not believe that the Council of Sar- 
dica, held a.d. 347, made any such Canons at 
all. I believe the (so-called) Canons of that 
Council, containing the Canon under dispute, 
to be nothing else but an impudent forgery of 
the following century, — a mere fabrication. 
If any unprejudiced person will take the trou- 
ble to consider the entire story with attention, 
and then will read Dr. Geddes' " Essay " on 

1 Hussey, p. 7. 2 Ibid. p. 5. 



EOME AND ENGLAND. 223 

this very subject at the end of the second vol- 
ume of his " Miscellaneous Tracts," — he will, 
I verily believe, be entirely of the same opin- 
ion. This at least is certain, — (1) That a 
Canon which we never heard of, till Pope Zo- 
zimus, a hundred years after the Council of 
Sardica, produced it ; and (2) which when he 
did produce it, he tried to palm upon the 
Church as a Canon of the Council of Niccea : 
(3) a Canon however which is attended with 
all manner of improbabilities and difficulties, 
— as, for instance, that it is one of a series 
which Dionysius Exiguus (a known fabrica- 
tor of ecclesiastical documents) is the first "to 
mention at the end of a second century of 
years : — this, I say, at least is certain : that 
such a Canon as this labours under such grave 
disadvantages ; comes before the world under 
such very suspicious circumstances ; that it 
cannot possibly be admitted as evidence. Its 
testimony cannot be listened to for a mo- 
ment. I do, for my own part, put it into the 
same category with the passage of Cyprian 
already considered. Rather do I place it in a 
yet lower category ; for I do not believe that a 
single sentence in it is genuine. .... And, 
with this, I finish. 

Farewell, Sir ! I will not delay you even 



224 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

while I make a summary of what has been 
offered. But I can and do assure you that, in 
my small way, I have laid before you, (hastily 
and imperfectly indeed, but not unadvisedly 
nor, as I think, with any material inaccuracy,) 
a body of evidence on the question, which you 
will find it very hard to dispose of. As Arch- 
bishop Laud said of the Jesuit, (not that I 
presume to compare myself to Laud, because 
I recall and venture to appropriate his quaint 
language :) — " He did but skip up and downe, 
and labour to pick a hole, here and there, 
where he thought he might fasten ; and where 
it was too hard for him, let it alone. But I 
have gone thorough with him ; and I hope, 
given him a full confutation, or at least such a 
bone to gnaw as may shake his teeth, if he 
look not to it." 1 

Again farewell, Sir ! You have urged me 
to apostatise from the Church of England, and 
by a reckless exercise of private judgment, to 
transplant myself into the Church of Rome. 
I have explained to you at considerable length 
w x hy I find it quite impossible to do so. I have 
done more. I have, as I suspect, furnished 



1 Laud's Letter to K. Charles I., prefixed to his Relation 
of the Conference, &c. 1639. 



ROME AND ENGLAND. 225 

you with not a few good reasons for repenting 
of your own rashness in presuming to forsake 
the Church of your Baptism in order to unite 
yourself to the Communion of Rome, — which, 
(excuse my plainness !) I verily believe to be 
the " Babylon " of the Apocalypse. 1 Uncatho- 
lic at all events, and corrupt to an alarming 
extent, the Romish Church has been already 
proved to be. And yet I was not concerned to 
prove that. The burden of proof lay alto- 
gether on your side, remember. . . . " No 
man," (to adopt the noble language of Arch- 
bishop Bramhall,) " can justly blame me for 
honouring my spiritual Mother, the Church of 
England, in whose womb I was conceived, at 
whose breasts I was nourished, and in whose 
bosom I hope to die. Bees, by the instinct of 
nature, do love their hives, and birds their 
nests. But, God is my witness, that, accord- 
ing to my utmost talent and poor understand- 
ing, I have endeavoured to set down the naked 
Truth impartially . . . And if I should mis- 
take the right Catholic Church out of human 
frailty or ignorance, (which, for my part, I 
have no reason in the world to suspect ; yet it 



1 The reader is referred to the well-known treatise of my 
friend Archdeacon Wordsworth. 

15 



226 ROME AND ENGLAND. 

is not impossible, when the Romanists them- 
selves are divided into five or six several opin- 
ions, what this Catholic Church, or what their 
Infallible Judge is,) I do implicitly and in the 
preparation of my mind submit myself to the 
True Catholic Church, the Spouse of Christ, 
the Mother of the Saints, the Pillar of Truth. 
And seeing my adherence is firmer to the Infalli- 
ble Rule of Faith, (that is, the Holy Scriptures 
interpreted by the Catholic Church^) than to 
mine own private judgment or opinions ; 
although I should unwittingly fall into an 
error, yet this cordial submission is an implicit 
.retractation thereof; and I am confident will 
be so accepted by the Father of Mercies, both 
from me and all others who seriously and sin- 
cerely do seek after Peace and Truth." 

Your obedient servant. 
Houghton Conquest, 7th Sept. 1861. 



APPENDIX. 



A. 

(Reeerked to on Page 34.] 



THE TESTIMONY OF THE CATACOMBS. 

HP HE spirit in which too many Romanists dis- 
-*- course about the Catacombs, and indeed discuss 
any object of Catholic antiquity, is very painful to a 
Catholic mind. They go to work, apparently, not 
so much to seek for Truth as to find — Romanism ! 
Romanism, in the best times of Catholic antiquity, 
beyond all doubt and question, they find not : and 
accordingly, they are kept, and they keep you, in a 
constant fuss while they are pretending to find, or to 
have found it. The Roman Catacombs are com- 
monly appealed to as if they were the very strong- 
hold of modern Romanism, — with how much reason, 
we shall see by-and-by : and as a necessary prelim- 
inary, they are approached in a spirit of unbounded 
imaginativeness. Every little bottle is assumed to 
have once held a martyr's blood. 1 Every indication 

l Fabiola, P. II., ch. 1. 



228 APPENDIX. 

of a palm-branch, every sculptured wreath, — is as- 
sumed to indicate a martyr's sufferings. Every 
ugly pair of pincers is declared to have once grasped 
the quivering flesh of a disciple of the Crucified. 
Every lamp is believed to have once burned before 
the spot where a Saint is sleeping. — It is forgotten 
that the little glass bottles of the particular shape to 
which they (and I) allude, abound in heathen tombs, 
— whether of Greece or of Italy. These good peo- 
ple forget that the palm-branch and the wreath occur 
(with whatever propriety, and with whatever inten- 
tion) on heathen and on Jewish tombstones. They 
are not aware that the pincers are a part of the 
sacrificial apparatus of Pagan Rome. They seem 
to be unconscious that lamps were a part of the 
heathen furniture of the grave. 1 No greater disser- 
vice could be done to the cause of Christian An- 
tiquity than this nonsensical way of dealing with the 
question. 

There is a peculiar mawkishness in the very tone 
of the popular Romish writers, which repels one. 
" Or haply, descend we (!) into the Catacombs," is 
no unfair sample of the way they begin a para- 
graph. 2 Describing a curious structure in the Cata- 

1 " Quisquis hide tumulo posuit ardentem lucernam illius cin- 
eres aurea terra tegat." — Gruter, p. 648. N. 17. The little 
lamps in question, as well as the little glass vessels, (of 
which the Florence-flask seems to be the modern develop- 
ment,) are quite common in the graves of the ancients. 

2 Dr. Bagg's The Papal Chapel Described, 1839, p. 8. 



APPENDIX. 229 

comb of St. Agnese, (about which nothing whatever 
is known,) the author of Fabiola writes, — " Two 
cubicula or chambers are placed, one on each side 
of a gallery or passage, so that their entrances are 
opposite to one another. At the end of one will be 
found an arcosolium, or altar-tomb ; and the probable 
conjecture is that in this division the men under the 
care of ostiarn, and in the other the women under 
the care of deaconesses, were assembled." — An 
" arcosolium," however, is not an altar-tomb, at all ; 
but quite another thing. (By the way, " altar-tomb," 
"altar-wise," and all such phrases, are exclusively 
English. The notion, I mean, is altogether English, 
— not a Roman notion.) As for the " probability " 
of the use to which the chambers were applied, it is 
a pure assumption of the writer's. — He finds a 
chamber elsewhere, concerning the use of which 
even conjecture is at fault; but this (he remarks) 
"is very naturally (?) supposed to have been the 
place reserved for the class of public penitents called 
audie?ites, and for the catechumens not yet initiated 
by baptism." (!) — Two small square golden boxes 
with a ring at the top of the lid, were found in the 
Vatican Cemetery in 1571. " These very ancient 
sacred vessels are considered by Bottari," (says the 
same writer,) " to have been used for carrying the 
Blessed Eucharist round the neck ; and Pellicia con- 
firms this by many arguments." The " many argu- 
ments " by which a point of this nature, (which is a 
pure assumption, after all,) is to be established, I 



230 APPENDIX. 

leave any sensible man to imagine. In this way, 
everything almost is discussed. The most gratuitous 
propositions are introduced with a " doubtless," or a 
" we may presume," or a " it is probable." This is 
the 1st and principal rhetorical device. — (2nd.) A 
bold assumption precludes the necessity for authori- 
ties and arguments. Thus, the author of Fabiola 
commenting on the early inscriptions, explains the 
omission of the year of a person's decease in the fol- 
lowing singular style. "In England, if want of 
space prevented the full date of a person's death 
from being given, we should prefer chronicling the 
year, to the day of the month, when it occurred. It 
is more historical. Yet, while so few ancient Chris- 
tian inscriptions supply the year of people's deaths, 
thousands give us the very day of it, on which they 
died, whether in the hopefulness of believers, or in 
the assurance of martyrs." (Martyrs again !) " This 
is easily explained. Of both classes annual com- 
memoration had to be made, on the very day of their 
departure ; and accurate knowledge of this was ne- 
cessary. Therefore it alone was recorded." — But 
would it have prevented the commemoration to have 
also recorded the year of death ? How does it hap- 
pen too that so few, comparatively, record any date 
at all ? And why is it generally the date of burial f 
(3rd.) An unfair, or rather, an untrue statement is 
as quietly put forward, as if it were a moral axiom. 
" A principle (!) as old as Christianity regulated the 
burial in Catacombs, — viz., the manner of Christ's 



APPENDIX. 231 

entombment. He was laid in a grave in a cavern, 
&c. ; and a stone, sealed up, closed His sepulchre. 
It was natural for His disciples to wish to be buried 
after His example." But how much truer it would 
have been, to say, that the copying of our Saviour's 
entombment had nothing whatever to do with the 
question; but that the early Christians, in their 
mode of burial, simply imitated the Jews ! Hence 
the practice of embalming, which prevailed in the 
primitive Church. 1 Nay, our Blessed Lord's en- 
tombment, as it happens, is not at all a case in point. 
For He was not buried " in a grave in a cavern ; " a 
stone did not " seal up His sepulchre," in the manner 
observable in the Catacombs. The sacred Body 
seems to have been deposited on the floor of the 
cave ; and merely as a temporary measure, a great 
stone, (not a slab,) was rolled to, (not cemented 
over,) the mouth of the cave, (not of the loculi in 
which the body was deposited.) This misrepresenta- 
tion of facts is so familiar a trick with a certain class 
of controversialists that one begins to look for it as a 
part of their style. 

To turn from this slipslop, however, to plain mat- 
ters of fact. — The question before us is clearly this : 
What is the religious teaching of the Catacombs ? 
What witness do they bear to the tenets of the early 
Church ? And do they countenance modern Roman- 
ism or not? .... I believe no man ever walked 

1 Bingham, B. xxiii. c. ii. § 5. 



U32 APPENDIX. 

down the long flight of steps which conduct to the 
chief gallery of the Catacomb of Callistus with 
more curiosity on this subject than I did. What 
need to declare, that if what I found at the bottom 
had been ever so distasteful to me, — ever so per- 
plexing and disturbing, — I would have published it 
freely, keeping back nothing ? 

Now, as for the result of an actual walk in the 
Catacombs, it really is not considerable any way, — 
simply because (as already explained) everything of 
interest or value has been removed from them. A 
few fresco paintings, — sadly begrimed with smoke 
of tapers most unfeelingly held against them by 
visitors, — there are. By and by, I will say a few 
words about them ; and on the symbolical represen- 
tations of the early Church generally. The bearing 
of those representations on the faith of the early 
Church, (which is emphatic,) will also be noticed 
most conveniently, then. At present, let it suffice to 
say that such frescoes are few in number, and rude 
in execution : moreover, their evidence (which, as 
far as it goes, is striking.) may very well be consid- 
ered, together with that of the ancient Christian 
sculptures, — apart. 

But the early Inscriptions from the Catacombs, — 
what do they teach ? By sculptured symbol, or by 
engraved record, what is their witness ? 

Negatively then, — I find no allusion ivhatever to 
the special tenets with which modern Romanism has 
identified itself. There is no hint in the Catacombs 



APPENDIX. 233 

that we are at Rome. Above ground, the Blessed 
Virgin Mary is evidently the presiding deity of the 
Eternal City. Go below ; and you seek for her in 
vain. I was going to say that she does not appear 
at all. I remember however one fresco, and one 
only, where the upper half of a female figure 
with a child in front of her, was pointed out as 
a representation of the Blessed Virgin. But it cer- 
tainly was not very ancient. On an isolated rep- 
resentation, however, of doubtful antiquity, it is 
obviously idle to dwell. A greater contrast than 
that between Christianity above and Christianity 
below ground, at Rome, — cannot well be imag- 
ined. 

The monogram of Christ, with the letters which 
recall His mysterious saying in the Revelation of St. 
John, — ( U I am Alpha and Omega,") — is the sym- 
bol of most frequent recurrence ; often, enclosed in 
a circle. The best instance of this symbol is' seen 
on a circular piece of oriental alabaster in the Colle- 
gio Romano. Another singularly beautiful stone, 
combining an anchor between two fishes with the 
inscription, IX0YC ZwNTooN, The fish of the living, 
may be dismissed with this brief notice. 

What need to say that these allusions, and the 
like of them, are dear to the Church Universal^ 
The anchor, (a heathen symbol, as every one who 
has crossed the threshold of a certain house in Pom- 
peii is aware,) seems to have been gladly adopted by 
the early Christians, as allusive to that hope which 



234 APPENDIX. 

" we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and 
steadfast." — The representation of a fish was espe- 
cially dear to the primitive believers. Did not the 
second Adam three times assert His dominion over 
" the fish of the sea/' — which was the primal grant 
to the first Adam ? And is it not true, (to quote 
the saying of Tertullian), that we, "pisciculi, secun- 
dum fydvv nostrum Jesum Christum, in aqua nas- 
cimur ? " — The symbolism of a ship to denote the 
Church, (wherein we pray that we " may so pass 
the waves of this troublesome world, that finally we 
may come to the land of everlasting life,") is well- 
known. Clemens Alexandrinus, describing the rep- 
resentations on the seals of the early believers, says, 
— " On our seals be seen a dove, or a fish, or a ship 
wafted along by the breath of Heaven (? ovqcivoSqo- 
fAOvaa) : or a musical lyre ... or a nautical anchor 
.... And if any one be a-fishing, he shall remem- 
ber the Apostle, and the children who are taken up 
out of the water." 1 It was the faith of the pagan 
world which also suggested the retention of the 
wreath. But this had so obvious a Christian signifi- 
cation, that Christendom must have been unconscious 
from the very first that she was doing more than em- 
ploying her own. Is there not " laid up " a crown 
" which the righteous Judge shall give unto all them 
that love His appearing"? The palm-branch was 
heathen doubtless ; but it was also Jewish. The fre- 

l Pcedagogus, lib. iii. p. 106, al. 246, al. vol. i. p. 289. 



APPENDIX. 235 

quent recurrence of the palm on the coins of Simon 
Barchocab, (to say nothing of such places as St. John 
xii. 13,) suggests that the early Christians did but 
retain what had long been an approved Jewish se- 
pulchral emblem. And does not every Christian 
man think with awful anticipation of that great mul- 
titude which no man may number, which stand " be- 
fore the Throne and before The Lamb, clothed with 
white robes, and palms in their hands " ? 

But the commonest symbol of all on tombs is a 
bird, generally with some leaves in its mouth ; and it 
is doubtless to be explained by the formula which is 
also the commonest of all, — " In pace." 

However unlike a dove, for a dove doubtless this 
bird is always intended. Its meaning may have 
been (and doubtless was) strangely overlooked, — as 
when it is represented pecking at a bunch of grapes, 
or standing on a vase. But whether perched on a 
tree, carrying foliage, or simply standing in fabulous 
conventionality, with a long neck and long legs, it is 
still an emblem of Peace. 

In truth, I make no doubt that, taken as it is from 
the history of Xoah, it was an established Jewish 
emblem, before it passed into the symbolical treasury 
of the Christian Church. The people who wrote 
shalom on the resting-places of their dead, before 
the veil was taken off' the Law, and the features of 
the Gospel discovered ; that same people, doubt- 
less, who from a coin of Apamea in Syria obtained 
their singular representation of Xoah, looking 



236 APPENDIX. 

out of the Ark, were doubtless the first to adopt 
the dove for the symbol of the peace of the de- 
parted. 

The Eucharistic allusion conveyed by the repre- 
sentation of five loaves and two fishes on a sepulchral 
stone from the Catacomb of S. Ermete, is obvious 
and striking. The loaves are made like our hot- 
crossed buns, for the convenience of fracture. By 
the way, the ancient loaf from Pompeii, preserved 
in the Naples Museum, is made and marked in the 
same way. 

The same must be the meaning of the two-handled 
vase, which sometimes appears on the monuments 
of the early Christians ; and which suggests the re- 
verse of the denial of the cup to the laity. At the 
same time, I must request you to observe that 
although, when the Christians had once adopted it, 
the cup or vase must have been reasonably regarded 
as allusive to the cup of the New Testament, it was 
doubtless at first a Jewish symbol, — whatever its 
meaning on the few surviving monuments of God's 
ancient people may be supposed to have been. Did 
it not represent the Passover cup ? I invite you to 
call to mind the coins of Simon Barchocab ; * and to 
recognise in the bunch of grapes, and the vine-leaf, 
the favourite symbols of the nation who, (at the sug- 
gestion perhaps of Psalm lxxx. 8,) represented a 

1 See the plates in Bayer, De Numis Hebrmo-Samari- 
tanis. 



APPENDIX. 237 

vine upon their temple. The vase I pretend not 
to explain. 1 But who sees not that when the 
Jewish dove is represented pecking at a bunch of 
grapes, those grapes were gathered from a Jewish 
vine? 

Who again perceives not that when birds and 
vases come together, both alike were, in the first in- 
stance, the property of God's ancient people ? 

On inscribed sepulchral slabs, are frequently no- 
ticed besides, the following sculptured representa- 
tions : — a person with outstretched arms and 
uplifted hands. This was doubtless the established 
attitude of prayer in primitive times, certainly 
among the Jews. Is it not what St. Paul meant 
when he willed that men should " pray everywhere, 
lifting up holy hands " ? 2 " Hie habitus orantium 
est," says Apuleius, " ut manibus in ccelum extensis 
precemur." Wetstein gives many more such pas- 



1 It is obvious to suggest that it alludes to the Passover- 
rite. Whatever this symbol meant on Jewish coins, and on 
Jewish gravestones, is however clearly a distinct question. 
Wondrous little is known about the coins of Simon Macca- 
basus, — to whose time the only extant old Jewish coin, the 
" shekel of Israel/' is (conjecturally) assigned. It bears on 
one side, a branch of pomegranate (sic), with three buds or 
blossoms: on the other, not a vase, but a cup, — exactly 
like a modern chalice. 

2 1 Tim. ii. 8. — Compare also Kom. x. 91 : Ps. exxxiv. 
2 : cxli. 2 : Is. i. 15. 



238 APPENDIX. 

The Good Shepherd is also of constant occurrence, 
with a lamb on his shoulders, and a sheep on either 
side of him. — His attire, (a short tunic and bus- 
kins,) convinces me that some forgotten heathen 
representation supplied the established type of this 
affecting image. The most interesting representa- 
tion I ever met with of the Good Shepherd, is in 
the Museum Kircherianum ; but was found in a 
Catacomb. 

A shepherd, (Orpheus?) playing on a pan-pipe 
under a tree, — a crook in his arm, and a sheep at 
his feet, — shows plainly enough from what source 
it came. The image was transferred to the capti- 
vating power of the Gospel message, — but it prob- 
ably savoured too strongly of heathendom to obtain 
much favour with the Christian Church. 

Altogether unique is the rude representation of 
the Sower sowing his seed, on a stone in the Museum 
Kircherianum. It suggests, in common with much 
which precedes, the scriptural character of the repre- 
sentation in which the early Church evidently most 
delighted. 

Then, for the actual Inscriptions, I need not say 
that words of Peace are the common property of all 
believers : while the image of Sleep, ever since the 
Holy Spirit dictated the 4th and 5th Psalms, has 
been familiar with the whole Christian world. Is it 
not related of St. Stephen, the first Martyr, that 
exoiuTjOrj, — " he fell asleep " ? — To say of one who 
lived professing a pure faith, and who died with a 



APPENDIX. 239 

good hope, that he " rests in God," or " in the Holy 
Spirit," — is to say what is familiarly believed 
(thank Heaven !) in all the Churches of Christen- 
dom. 

The pretended Invocations of Saints will be found 
separately discussed further on. In conclusion, 
let the following inscriptions on five of the early 
Popes be considered ; and it will be felt that we are 
dealing with an age when the pretensions of modern 
Romanism were unknown. ANTEPooC EIII, (Ante- 
ros was Bishop of Rome a.d. 235.) — $ABIANOC 
EIII MTP (in monogram, Fabian, Bishop and Mar- 
tyr, was from a.d. 236.) — AOYKIC, (Lucius, a.d. 
252.) — ETTTXIANOC EniC, (Eutychianus, a.d. 
275.) — CORNELIYS MARTYR EP. (Cornelius, a.d. 
250.) . . . You perceive that once the occupant 
of the Roman see knew himself, and was known 
by the whole world, to be a Bishop and nothing 
more : scarcely " primus inter pares." Witness the 
extant writings of that same " Cornelius Ep., Mar- 
tyr," to whose epitaph I am alluding. " Compres- 
byteri nostri," " coepiscopi nostri," is repeatedly his 
phrase. 1 

It remains only to call attention to an epitaph 
hastily copied in a cloister adjoining the Library of 
S. Paolo fuori le Mura : — Gaudentius the presbyter 
to himself and his wife Severa, a virtuous woman, 
[what follows is clearly blundered] who lived 42 

1 Reliquice, vol. iii. pp. 16, 17. 



240 APPENDIX. 

years, 3 months, 10 days. Buried 4th of the nones 
of April. Timasius and Promus being Consuls. 

In the year a.d. 389 then, we are reminded by 
the Catacombs that the Clergy were married, — an- 
other note of contrast between ancient and modern 
Romanism. 

In what precedes it has been shown pretty clearly, 
that when the Roman Christians of the first four 
centuries address us by inscriptive writing, they 
speak a language which we well understand ; for it 
is the language of the Church Catholic as it is estab- 
lished, (through God's Providence,) in these realms. 
There is nothing peculiarly Romish, — (how could 
there be ?) — in anything they deliver. — But what 
of their Symbolism? There are early Christian 
frescoes to be seen at Rome. There are also sculp- 
tured sarcophagi, in great abundance ; and some are 
of fine workmanship. Who can be unconscious of 
a strong curiosity to know what is taught by such 
objects as these ? 

Let me explain myself a little. The ancients, (I 
allude now, of course, to pagan Rome,) used to bury 
their great in sumptuous sarcophagi of stone or mar- 
ble. Battle-scenes, processions, representations of 
famous events, — warriors, chariots and horses, and 
the like, — figure largely on the front and sides of 
these sarcophagi ; — a central compartment, (fash- 
ioned like the concave of half a bivalve shell,) being 
left for a representation of the deceased, and proba- 
bly of his wife. Erect, at the two extremities of the 



APPENDIX. 241 

lid of the sarcophagus, are often seen tragic masks. 
Now, the early Christians adopted, and carried on 
this method of interment. Witness those two colos- 
sal sarcophagi of red Egyptian porphyry now to be 
seen in the Vatican, which once contained the bodies 
of the Empress Helena, (our countrywoman, the 
wife of Constantine the Great) ; and of Constautia, 
the Emperor's daughter. It not unfrequently hap- 
pens that they even retained the ornament of the 
tragic mask; and combined representations pecu- 
liarly Christian with some of a pagan kind. But, 
(to come to the point,) as a rule, they pourtrayed 
subjects unequivocally Christian on the sarcophagi 
of their dead : and it is chiefly to these subjects, that 
I now wish to invite your attention. 

The Christian Museum of St. John Lateran is 
a spacious apartment, all round which, against the 
walls, stand sculptured sarcophagi. Their date ap- 
pears to be about the fifth century ; later rather than 
earlier, I suspect : but I am not certain. A more 
interesting set of monuments of early sacred Art, 
can hardly be imagined. No one is allowed to 
sketch ; but visitors may make as many memoranda 
as they please. Accordingly, I made a memorandum 
of every one, — which, considering their sameness, 
was not very laborious. At the same time, the sar- 
cophagi are so numerous, (about fifty-five in all,) that 
I thought they would supply materials for a fair in- 
duction as to which representations enjoyed the great- 
est degree of favour with the early Church ; and the 
16 



242 APPENDIX. 

result of my memoranda, I propose to lay before you, 
now. 

But in order to be quite intelligible, let me de- 
scribe to you one of the most interesting specimens 
of these objects. It has been converted into an 
altar, and is to be seen in the chapel of S. Lucia, in 
the Basilica of S. Maria Maggiore. There are (as 
usual) two series of representations ; and in the 
centre, within a shell, is the upper half of (I think) 
two male figures. The upper series consists of, (1) 
the raising of Lazarus ; (2) the denial of St. Peter ; 
(3) Moses receiving the Law ; (4) the sacrifice of 
Isaac; (5) Pilate washing his hands. The lower 
series represents (6) the smitten rock, with figures ; 
(7) probably, our Lord's Apprehension, — see be- 
low, the 4th representation ; (8) Daniel among the 
lions ; (9) one reading under a tree, a man looking 
through the branches ; (10) the blind restored to 
sight; (11) the miracles of the loaves. — Having 
premised thus much, I shall be most useful if I may 
be allowed to describe, in succession, every repre- 
sentation to be found in the room. There are but 
about 30 subjects, after all. For convenience, I will 
prefix to each a number ; and add a number at the 
end expressive of the frequency of its recurrence. 
Let it be remarked once for all, that the present con- 
ventional type of our Divine Lord, (with a beard 
and parted hair,) nowhere appears on these sarco- 
phagi. He is, I think, always represented as a beard- 
young man. 



APPENDIX. 243 

1. The History of Jonah — The prophet be- 
ing thrown out of the ship. A fish is gen- 
erally represented open-mouthed to receive 
him. 

Jonah being cast out of the fish's belly. 

Jonah reclining under the gourd. 

These three very favourite representations are 
often singularly blended together. More than 
one instance is there of Jonah beneath the gourd, 
with his legs not yet quite disengaged from the 
jaws of the fish 23 

2. The Smitten Rock is exhibited by a stream 
flowing down from a rock ; before which stands 
Moses, — generally, (not always,) with a rod in 
his hand. There are always accessories here, the 
meaning of which is not plain ; except when 
(as often happens) these are bending to drink of 
the water 21 

3. The Miracle of the Loaves. — Our Lord 
stands between two disciples, — one of whom 
holds a basket containing loaves, — the other, a 
vessel, in which are fishes. One hand is laid in 
benediction upon either. But this representation 
often takes another shape. Seven baskets are in- 
troduced ; six on the ground, one in the hands of 

a disciple, — as before 20» 

4. I presume the Apprehension of our Lord 
is indicated as often as a figure is seen with a sol- 
dier on either side (wearing a peculiar kind of 
hat,) who seem to be both arresting Him. . . 20 



244 APPENDIX. 

5. The Giving of Sight to the Blind, (St. John 
ix.) is exhibited by introducing our Lord, touch- 
ing the eyes of a little figure who stands before 
Him. There are accessories, of course. . . .19 

6. The Miracle of the Water made Wine. — 
Our Lord is seen extending a rod towards two, 
three, four, five, or six water-pots. One or more 
accessory figures are seen 16 

7. In the raising of Lazarus, our Lord stands 
before a tomb, which is represented like a little 
temple, with a raised pediment, supported by two 
columns. A veiled female (Mary ?) crouches on 
the other side of him. More often, I think, Laz- 
arus himself comes to view; but invariably in 
the form of a mummy, blocking up the door. 
Sometimes our Lord is extending a wand. . .16 

8. Daniel in the Lions 9 Den is invariably rep- 
resented by exhibiting a naked figure, erect, be- 
tween two lions couchant and regarding him (as 
the heralds express it). The prophet's uplifted 
hands indicate that he is engaged in prayer. Not 
unfrequently, Habakkuk is seen at his side offer- 
ing him a basket of loaves 14 

9. The Denial of St. Peter, would, I think, be 
more properly called the prophecy of Christ 

# that St. Peter would deny Him. Our Lord is 
addressing St. Peter, at whose feet stands a 
cock. — Let me remark, once for all, that there 
is commonly an additional figure, (or more than 
one,) in every subject. About these accessories, 



APPENDIX. 245 

(which are generally indicated by a head, — to 
all appearance put in to fill up the vacant space,) 
I shall say nothing 14 

10. In the healing of the Paralytic, — our 
Lord, (almost always represented as a beardless 
figure,) is standing with an older man at His 
side. A little figure beneath seems struggling 
under the weight of a mighty sofa which he car- 
ries on his shoulders 12 

11. The Creation of Adam, ( or qu. of JEve?) 
— Our Lord with His extended rod, touches 
the head of a little figure lying on the ground. 
Another person is standing by 11 

12. In the sacrifice of Isaac, Abraham extends 
his right arm towards heaven, where another 

*hand is seen with uplifted finger. The patri- 
arch's left rests on the head of a little figure, 
who kneels on one knee at his feet. On the 
other side is a ram 11 

13. In representations of the Adoration of the 
Magi, the Virgin and Infant Saviour are on one 
side, — and often with a very conspicuous star 
above. On the other side three or four figures 
are hastening forward with gifts. Sometimes a 
camel appears. — This variety in the number of 
the Magi is an interesting circumstance, — re- 
minding one that the three gifts are the only 
reason for assuming, (it does not amount to a 
presumption,) that the Magi were three like- 
wise 11 



246 APPENDIX. 

14. The Temptation of our first Parents. — 
Adam and Eve standing on either side of the 
Tree of Knowledge, round which is twined the 
Serpent. So old is this still prevalent type I 1 .10 

15. The Healing of the Woman with the bloody 
issue, I presume, is indicated by a woman crouch- 
ing before our Lord, and apparently touching 
his clothes. Over her head, He extends His 
hand. Another figure stands by 8 

16. The Good Shepherd (elsewhere described). 6 

17. Our Lord's triumphal entry into Jerusa- 
lem is represented by a figure seated on an ass, 
— while others spread their garments before 
Him. One discovered in a tree, suggests the 
notion that the incident of Zaccheus is blended 
with this 6 

18. Noah's Ark. — A man with outstretched 
arms stands up in a square box.. A dove is fly- 
ing towards him 5 

19. Our Lord before Pilate. — Among sev- 
eral figures, two are chiefly conspicuous. A sol- 
dier of rank is sitting in a thoughtful attitude, 

1 On first visiting Oxford, (about 25 years ago,) I walked 
to Forest-hill to see the house of Milton's father-in-law. 
Upon the further end of one of the adjoining offices, (a kind 
of barn,) facing the residence of the Powells was a quaint 
old bas-relief of the scene described above, . executed in 
stucco. Milton must have many a time looked upon that 
representation of the subject of his Paradise Lost ! The 
barn fell down one windy night, about 20 years ago. 



APPENDIX. 247 

his face resting on his hand. Before him stands 
one who holds a basin in his left, — an ewer in 
his right. On a low table is a vase. — Occasion- 
ally, our Lord is simply standing before the 
Governor 5 

20. Is the institution of Sacrifice represented 
by exhibiting our Lord (?) standing before 
Adam and Eve ? In His right hand are ears of 
corn; in His left, a goat (?) 4 

21. The giving of the Law. — Moses extends 
his hand ; into which, another hand, from a cloud, 
places the two tables 4 

22. The Three Children appear, wearing Phry- 
gian bonnets, standing in the attitude of prayer 
among flames which issue from a low furnace. . 4 

23. Christ bearing His Cross 3 

24. Moses putting his shoes from off his feet. . 2 

25. The Translation of Elijah. — The prophet 
drops his mantle, — Elisha and two little sons of 
the prophets behind 2 

25. The Nativity of Christ. — The Holy 
Child is in a cradle. The ox and the ass, — 
those truly venerable types of the animal king- 
dom, — appear above 1 

26. Christ crowned with thorns 1 

Let me say, once for all, that there are several 
other subjects of rare occurrence, of which I failed 
to detect the precise meaning. Rather let me pro- 
ceed with my story. 



248 APPENDIX. 

When we turn from early Christian Sculpture, to 
early Christian Fresco painting, it is right that we 
should be reminded of the nature of what we are 
about to contemplate. Not the pictured walls of 
Churches come to view, (for it was strictly prohib- 
ited, in the primitive age, so to decorate the House 
of God, 1 ) but the sepulchral chambers of the departed. 
And these were adorned with symbols, and arabesque 
ornaments, not because it was congenial to the mind 
of Christianity so to illustrate the Faith, but because 
it teas the heathen custom so to honour the dead. 
Accordingly, you are not certain, for a few moments, 
whether you are looking on a pagan or a Christian 
work. There are the same fabulous animals in both, 
— the same graceful curves, — the same foliage, 
fruit, and flowers. Birds appear in both ; and the 
peacock, (so common in heathen frescoes,) is found 
to have been appropriated by the early Christians, 
whether in allusion to the all-seeing eyes of God, or 
not, I venture not to declare. 

But more frequently, the subject tells its own tale. 
The Good Shepherd, (in a well-known fresco in the 
Cemetery of Callistus,) is seen with a lamb on his 
shoulders, — two sheep being at his feet. From the 
smitten rock on either side a figure rudely drawn is 
catching the water in his hands : and two sheep are 
in front of either. Close your ears to those amiable 

1 Cone. Eliberit. c. xxxvi. The Council was held a.d. 
305. See Bingham, B. viii. c. viii. § 6. 



APPENDIX. 249 

and highly imaginative enthusiasts who, in that rude 
fresco, pretend to discover that " one of the two 
sheep is listening attentively, not quite understand- 
ing as yet, but meditating, and seeking to understand. 
The other turns his tail. It is an unwelcome sub- 
ject, and he will have nothing to do with it. On the 
other side, one of the two sheep is drinking in all 
that he hears with simplicity and affection ; the other 
is eating grass ; he has something else to do. He is 
occupied with the cares, &c, of this world." ... I 
am not insensible to the merits of a painting, slow at 
catching an allusion, or unimaginative. But I hesi- 
tate not to say that all this kind of thing, (of which 
you hear so much in the Catacombs !) is mere moon- 
shine. " Turning his tail " the sheep certainly is ; 
but the design of the animal in so doing, and that of 
the artist, I should think were almost upon a par 
. . . Let this suffice. Such ingenuity, instead of 
dignifying the subject, renders it only a matter of 
ridicule ; and, like Romish fictions in general, can 
result in nothing so much as in producing disbelief 
of things which are really worthy of credit. The 
early Christian Frescoes, (as one would have ex- 
pected,) are as rude as the early Christian Sculp- 
tures, and as the early Christian Inscriptions. 

The favourite representations in fresco (whether 
by allusive symbol or actual design) are still, (as be- 
fore,) the smitten Rock, — the miracle of the loaves 
and fishes, — the Good Shepherd, — the Sacrifice of 
Isaac, — the receiving of the Law, — the history of 



250 APPENDIX. 

Jonah. I tried in vain to ascertain the respective 
frequency of these representations. 

It is high time to bring these remarks to a con- 
clusion. — On a review of all that has gone before, 
the representations which are found to have enjoyed 
greatest favour with the early believers, do, I con- 
fess, somewhat surprise me. Out of all the possible 
Old Testament subjects, to find that the story of 
Jonah (23), Moses striking the rock (21) or receiv- 
ing the Law (4), Daniel among the lions (14), the 
Creation of Man (11) and his Fall (10), Abraham 
offering Isaac (11), and the three Children in the 
furnace (4), should enjoy special favour, — is cer- 
tainly somewhat singular. It occasions less aston- 
ishment to find that the miracles of our Lord which 
stand out most conspicuous are, — the loaves and 
fishes (20), the blind man healed (19), the water 
made wine (16), Lazarus (16), the Paralytic (12), 
the bloody issue (8). On the other hand, that the 
events selected from our Lord's life should be His 
Apprehension (20), St. Peter's Denial (14), the 
visit of the Magi (11), and the Triumphal Entry (6), 

— very reasonably, I think, surprises one. We 
should have expected to see more often pourtrayed 
the Virgin and Child, (a subject which is all but un- 
known :) the Baptism, the Temptation, or the Trans- 
figuration, (none of which are known ever to occur.) 
Above all, one would have looked for the Crucifixion, 

— which is altogether without example. Neither 
the Entombment, nor indeed hardly any of the 



APPENDIX. 251 

favourite subjects of modern Christian Art, make 
part of the symbolism of the primitive age. The 
omission strikes me as exceedingly interesting. 
Hardly can it require to be added that the treat- 
ment of these several subjects is utterly undevotional, 
and the manner of representing our Blessed Lord, 
most unworthy ; although of course nothing was ever 
less intended than irreverence. 

But it is well worth observing, (and with this I 
shall conclude,) that the taste and temper of the an- 
cient and of the modern Church of Rome, stand out 
in wondrous contrast here. What traces are there 
of the Mariolatry which at present prevails in the 
seat of the Papacy ? Where is the pre-eminence 
given to St. Peter? How comes it to pass that 
there is no allusion to his exclusive possession of the 
keys ? Why do the words " Tu es Petrus " appear 
nowhere ? Why are there no allusions to Purgatory, 
— to the worship of Saints, — or indeed to anything 
that is Romish? Why does the Blessed Virgin 
never once appear on the oldest monuments? We 
find Popes named like the humblest Bishops, — al- 
lusions to only two Sacraments, — hints that the cup 
was for the Laity, — evidence of a married Clergy. 
.... No ! the remains of early Christian Art, like 
the most venerable of the Patristic writings, are one 
loud protest against the corruptions of modern Ro- 
manism. The favourite appeal to the Christians of 
the Catacombs, is absolutely fatal. If those primi- 
tive believers could revisit the earth, they would 



252 APPENDIX. 

walk away with horror from the column of the 
Piazza di Spagna which commemorates "the new 
dogma of 1854." How shocked would they be to 
find the Blessed Virgin everywhere, and her adora- 
ble Son scarcely anywhere at all ! They would be 
impatient of the many human objects of worship 
which keep Him so nearly out of sight. Those huge 
statues under the dome of St. Peter's, of Veronica, 
Helena, and Longinus, would confound them. The 
bronze figure of the Saint, — (especially if he had 
his smart robes on,) — would fill them with conster- 
nation. What would tbey say when they beheld his 
foot well-nigh kissed away by his many devotees, — 
the Bishop of Pome himself setting the example? 
. . . They would inquire what the inscription over 
every church-door, (" Indulgentia plenaria pro vivis 
et mortuis,") meant : and when they were told, they 
would reject the evidence of their senses. How 
would they testify their indignation at the promise 
of deliverance to any believer's soul out of Purga- 
torial pain, for whom Mass should be celebrated at 
one particular altar? .... Surely, those ancient 
men would move in one goodly company towards 
that gate, where the thoroughfares of Rome seem to 
converge. They would repair to a well-known 
building outside the Porta del Popolo, (which looks 
more like a low theatre, — or a novel race-stand, — 
or a petty club-house, — or a genteel barn, — than 
a Church): and in the Ritual there daily practised, 
— in the Eucharist there weekly celebrated, — they 



APPENDIX. 253 

would recognise the lineaments of the public service 
of their own best days ; not assuredly to be recog- 
nised elsewhere at Rome. And ft What do ye 
here ? " they would ask. And when one of our 
own people made answer that we have been expelled 
"without the gate" "bearing His reproach," — I 
can anticipate the terrible rejoinder. . . . Right 
sure am I that the Martyrs of that primitive age 
now carry palms with our own Ridley, and Cranmer, 
and Latimer ! As once they confessed the self-same 
pure faith, so now they all rejoice in the same Beati- 
fic presence, — wear the same white robe, — and re- 
joice in the same amaranthine crown ! 



254 APPENDIX. 



B. 

(Referred to on Page 43.) 



" INVOCATION OF SAINTS " — " PRAYERS FOR THE 
DEAD " : — TESTIMONY OF THE CATACOMBS. 

TT seems to be thought by persons of the Romish 
-*- Communion, that a pious aspiration on behalf of 
the departed, because it naturally assumes the form 
of a prayer, is a rebuke to us of the English Church. 
I cannot, for my own part, feel that it is any rebuke 
at all. Waiving the recorded history of prayers for 
the dead, there is nothing in the inscriptions from the 
Catacombs which could be seriously maintained to 
sanction the practice. It is to be observed that these 
are all apostrophes, — addressed to the departed. 
" Mayest thou live in God \" — " God refresh thy 
spirit ; " — and the like. Now this is the language 
of natural piety, which has found vent among all 
people and in all ages. Thus, heathen Greece would 
write above a grave as follows : — 

Be of good cheer, Lady ; and to thee 
Osiris give to quaff the cooling water. 

Or thus : — 

In precious odours be thy soul, my child ! 



APPENDIX. 255 

And heathen Eome : — 

fare thee well I Thy mother prays thee, take, 
Yea take me to thyself. Again farewell ! 

The simple truth is, that one who has followed the 
object of his affection to the edge of the valley of 
the shadow of death, cannot be mute. No one ever 
suspected of " Invocation of Saints," (or of belief in 
the " Shades " either,) the author of the epitaph, — 
" Forgive, blest shade, the tributary tear," &c. ; or 
Bishop Lowth when he wrote upon his daughter's 
grave, — " Eja, age, in amplexus, cara Maria, 
redi ! " 

On Professor Hussey's tomb at Sandford, is writ- 
ten, " Requiescat" But did any one ever suspect 
that good and great man, — or his admirable rela- 
tives, of a sneaking kindness for Romanism ? and 
yet, what should we not have heard if, on the sepul- 
chral slab of a famous teacher known to be buried in 
the Catacombs, such words were found written ? — 
Some verses once appeared in the Times on the 
occasion of the funeral of the greatest Captain 
of modern days, in which a passage began, — 
" God rest his gallant spirit ! give him peace ! " 
A lynx-eyed friend immediately inquired whether 
that was not a prayer for the dead? Every 
one must see that nothing is less intended on 
such occasions. Was Lord Byron praying for the 
dead, when he wrote, " Bright be the place of thy 
soul"? 



256 APPENDIX. 

The three following deserve to be classed together ; 
all three containing what sounds like an invocation 
of Saints. But, for that practice, be it observed in 
passing, these inscriptions are no warrant at all. 
These are not invocations of Saints in any sense ; 
but still (as before) mere apostrophes to relations 
recently departed, whom the survivors follow into the 
unseen world with a passionate entreaty that they 
would not discontinue their prayers for the beloved 
ones left behind. 

In the first inscription it will be perceived that the 
parents implore the prayers of their infant child; 
associating with him those " spirits and souls of the 
righteous" among whom he was already dwell- 
ing:— 

Dionysius, a spotless infant, lies here with the Saints. do 
ye remember us also, in your holy prayers I — aye, and the en- 
graver and writer as well. 

Again : — 

Buried on the 13th of the Kalends of June. Augenda, may est 
thou live, in the Lord, and pray for us! 

Again : — 

. . . May est thou live in peace, and pray for us ! 

" That the Saints departed yet live unto God," 
(w^rote the late venerable President of Magdalen 
College,) " Holy Scripture teaches : as well as that 
the Martyrs pray for the coming of God's judg- 



APPENDIX. 257 

ment. From which it is reasonable to infer that the 
same Saints pray not only for themselves, but also 
for the people of God, and for their friends. On the 
other hand, either that they know what befalls us on 
earth, or that they hear our prayers, the canonical 
books nowhere state ; much less do they command 
us to request them to pray to God for us. Should 
any however be of opinion that this, though not 
commanded, ought yet to be done, it is for us all 
anxiously to consider, that Holy Scripture, which 
condemns ' the worship of Angels,' must perforce 
forbid the religious ' cultus ' of men, who are lower 

than the Angels In no book written before 

the Council of Nicsea does mention occur either of 
formulae (whether written or unwritten) employed in 
public worship, or of any Hymn, in which the 
Saints are invocated to intercede with God. In the 
epitaphs of Martyrs and others, such petitions are 
of most rare occurrence." It may surely be rea- 
sonably questioned if a single instance of it is to he 
found in the Romish sense. On the other hand, 
our own Ridley could address his " brother Brad- 
ford," on the eve of his martyrdom, as follows : — 
" So long as I shall understand that thou art in 
thy journey, by God's grace I shall call upon 
our heavenly Father, for Christ's sake, to see thee 
safely home : and then, good Brother, speak you, 
and pray for the remnant that are to suffer for 
Christ's sake, according to thai thou then shalt 
know more clearly" Cyprian's language to Corne- 

17 



258 APPENDIX. 

lius is precisely similar : — " Memores nostri in- 
vicem simus. Utrobique pro nobis semper oremus. 
Et si quis istinc nostrum prior . . . p?*cecesserit, 
.... pro fratribus et sororibus nostris apud miseri- 
cordiam Patris non cesset oratioT 



APPENDIX. 259 



C. 

(Referred to on Page 53 and Page 132.) 



RELICS. 



I" MUST not pass by this subject of Relics with a few 
■*- cursory remarks ; for it evidently occupies a con- 
siderable place in the public devotions of a Roman 
Catholic. The " Invito Sagro " specifies which relics 
will be displayed in each of the six churches enume- 
rated — (e. g., the heads of SS. Peter and Paul, 
their chains, some wood of the Cross, &c.) ; — grants 
seven years of indulgence for every visit, by whom- 
soever paid; and promises plenary indulgence to 
every person who, after confessing and communicat- 
ing, shall thrice visit each of the aforesaid churches, 
and pray for awhile on behalf of the Holy Church. 
There are besides, on nine chief festivals, as many 
great displays of Relics at Rome : the particulars of 
which may be seen in the Annee Litiirgique, pp. 
189-206. I witnessed one, somewhat leisurely, at 
the Church of the Twelve Apostles. 

There was part of the arm of St. Bartholomew 
and of St. James the Less ; part of St. Andrew's 
leg, arm, and cross ; part of one of St, Paul's fin- 



260 APPENDIX. 

gers ; one of the nails with which St. Peter was 
crucified ; St. Philip's right foot ; liquid blood of St. 
James ; some of the remains of St. John the Evan- 
gelist, of the Baptist, of Joseph, and of the Blessed 
Virgin ; together with part of the Manger, Cradle, 
Cross, and Tomb of our Lord, &c, &c. Of course 
many persons knelt, (though by no means all), while 
this strange (and painful) exhibition was going on. 
.... Are we to suppose, (one feels inclined to ask 
one's self,) that these people believe all that they hear ; 
or that they disbelieve it ? If they believe, — how 
exceedingly infatuated must they be ! If they dis- 
believe, — how damaging to the religious life must 
the insincerity and hollowness of such a service be- 
come ! Above all, how must it provoke unbelief in 
things which are worthy of all acceptation ! 

The veneration of Relics in the Pomish Church 
is really carried to an extent which is scarcely cred- 
ible. Does not the most ordinary instinct of piety, 
not to say the merest common sense, compel one at 
last to turn away with sorrow and displeasure ? At 
Amalfi, they assert that St. Andrew is buried ; St. 
Matthew at Salerno; St. Mark at Venice. Good. 
Let us suppose that a skeleton, traditionally reputed 
to be the skeleton of an Apostle, was long since con- 
veyed to Amalfi, &c. But what of the many skulls, 
arms, legs, &c, of the same saints which are to be 
seen at Pome, and elsewhere ? St. Andrew's skull, 
for instance, at St. Peter's, — his leg at the Church 
of the Twelve Apostles, and one of his ribs at S. 



APPENDIX. 2(31 

Maria in Canipitelli, — St. Matthew's arm at S. Ma- 
ria Maggiore and at S. Prassede, &c. &c. &c. Why., 
again, (if they will invent such things,) display (of 
all heads in the world !) the head of John the Bap- 
tist? 1 Why, (of all fingers,) pretend to show the 
unbelieving finger with which St. Thomas touched 
the side of his risen Lord ? 2 . . . What grotesque 
notions, too, are they for ever laying hold of! The 
idea, for instance, of showing the porphyry slab on 
which the soldiers cast lots for the seamless coat : 
the stone on which the cock stood when he crowed 
twice: a column of the Temple which was split 
when the veil was rent in twain ! (it has been sawn 
lengthways, evidently :) the impression made in a 
block of marble by our Saviour's feet, (and such 
feet !) when He was taking leave of St. Peter in the 
Via Appia (!) : the identical column against which 
He used to lean when He taught in the Temple, — 
and which possesses miraculous properties in conse- 
quence, 3 &c. &c. . . . Must not all this, sooner or 



1 At the Church of S. Silvestro in Capite. 

2 At S. Croce in Gerusalemme. 

3 This column is enclosed within iron rails, and kept 
under lock and key, in the right-hand corner of St. Peter's 
as you enter. The inscription on the base ; (which follows,) 
is very singularly cut, with many strange contractions : — 

Hec est ilea columna in quam dominus poster 
jesus christus appodiatus, dem populo predicabat, 
et deo patri preces in templo efpundebat, adher- 
endo stabat : que una cum alus undecim hic cte- 



262 APPENDIX. 

later, produce irreverence ? It certainly seems to 
destroy the faculty of intellectual perspective ; for 
one finds " a napkin stained with the blood of* St. 
Philip Neri," mentioned in the same breath with " a 
veil steeped in the blood and water which flowed 
from our Redeemer's side " ! . . . I am not now 
dragging into light a thing which the authorities of 
the Romish Church desire to keep back ; or which 
they seem half ashamed of; or which is disappear- 
ing from public notice. If such w T ere the case, I 
should certainly have passed it by in silence. But 
it is not so. Wherever you turn, you are shown 
nails of the Crucifixion, or fragments of the Cross, 
or thorns of the Crown. It is no secret. These 
relics are appealed to in the printed affiches, put 
forth by authority ; nay, they are proudly blazoned 
on the walls of the churches. At St. Peter's, for 
example, above the four most conspicuous statues, 
one reads in large letters, of, — "Partem Cruris 
quam Helena Imperatrix e Calvario in urbem avex- 
it : " (this is over St. Helena : — " Longini lanceam 
quam Innocentius VIII. Pont. Max. a Bajazete Tur- 
carum Tyranno accepit : " (this is over " Sanctus 
Longinus Martyr," — a name invented for the sol 

CUMSTANTIBUS DE SALOMINIS TEMPLO, IN TRIUMPHUM 
HUJUS BASILICE, HIC LOCATA FUIT : DEMONES EXPELLIT, 
ET AB INMUNDIS SPIRITIBUS VEXATOS LIBEROS REDDIT ' 
ET MULTA MIRACULA COTIDIE FACIT : PEE, REVERENDIS 
SIMUM PATEEM ET DOMINUM DOMINUS CARDINALIS DE 
URSINIS ORNATA ANNO DOMINI, M°CCCC°XXX VIII. 



APPENDIX. 



263 



dier who with his spear Q.6y%rj) pierced the Redeem- 
er's side) : — " Sancti Andreae caput quod Pius 
secundus ex Achaia in Vaticanum asportandum 
curavit : " (this is over St. Andrew) : — " Salvatoris 
imaginem Veronica sudario exceptant" — which is 
above the statue of " Sancta Veronica Ierosolymi- 
tana ; " a name which I suppose has been in like 
manner coined in allusion to the phenomenon of the 
handkerchief. These several relics are exposed on 
great days. ... At S. Prassede, on either side of 
the tribune, is an enumeration of relics, (inscribed 
on a large marble panel,) which would make you 
stare. I copied the right-hand inscription, which is 
verbatim as follows. (That on the left is in the 
same strain exactly.) 

HlC SITAE SUNT INFRASCRIPTAE EeLIQUIAE. 



Dens Sancti Petri Apostoli. 

Dens Sancti Pauli Apostoli. 

De reliquiis S. Ananiae Apos- 
toli. 

Sancti Terentiani Martyris. 

De camisia (!) Beatas Mariae 
Yirginis. 

De cingulo D. N. Jestj 
Chbisti. 

De brachio S. Philippi Apos- 
toli. 

De virga Moysi. 

De brachio S. Barnabae 
Apostoli. 

De terra super qua D. N. 



Jesus Christus oravit 
ante Passionem. 

De brachio S. Severini Mar- 
tyris. 

De Reliquiis S. Benedicti 
Abbatis. 

De Reliquiis S. Sabae Ab- 
batis. 

De Reliquiis S. Galli Ab- 
batis. 

De Reliquiis S. Constantiao 
Imperatoris Filiae. 

De Reliquiis SS. Quadra- 
ginta Martirum. 

De velo Sanctae Agatae. 



264 



APPENDIX. 



De arundine et spongia qua 
potaverunt Dominum nos- 
trum Jesttm Christum. 

De capitibus Sanctor. Petri 
et Pauli. 

De Eeliquiis SS. Cosmae et 
Damiani. 

De costa Sancti Alexii. 

De bracliio Sancti Coluni- 
bani. 

De bracliio Sancti Sebas- 
tiani. 

De bracliio Sancti Nicolai. 

De sepulcro Beatae Virginis 
Mariae. 

Imago Salvatoris quam S. 



Petro Apostolus donavit 

Prudentio patri Sanctae 

Praxedis. 
De Eeliquiis Sancti Joannis 

Baptistae. 
De linteo quo Domixus ab- 

stersit pedes Discipulo- 

rum. 
De pannis quibus involutus 

fuit Dominus Jesus in 

sua Nativitate. 
De veste inconsutili D. N. 

Jesu Christi. 
Tres spinae de Corona D. N. 

Jesu Christi. 



When a fragment of human bone is shown you, 
you cannot of course disprove the assertion that it 
belonged to any Apostle or Evangelist who may be 
named. So, of the hay said to have come from the 
stable of Bethlehem. But of the inscribed Title of 
the Cross, (preserved at the Church of S. Croce in 
Gerusalemme,) one takes leave to form a private 
opinion. It may be, (for aught that I see to the 
contrary,) a thousand years old ; but it was evidently 
the fabrication of some person who did not under- 
stand Greek. He took the words from the Vulgate, 
(St. John xix. 19,) and traced them from right to 
left, — out of respect for the Hebrew, I suppose. 
Above the word Nazarenus, he wrote what he evi- 
dently considered a sufficient Greek equivalent, — 
guvsQciQaN. Now, once more, let me not be thought 



APPENDIX. 265 

ungenerous in bringing forward this transparent for- 
gery. If well-informed Romanists disbelieved and 
rejected, or openly disallowed and were ashamed of 
it, — I should have been the last to call attention to 
it. But, on the contrary, Cornelius a Lapide, (in his 
Commentary on St. Matth. xxvii. 37,) deliberately 
informs his reader, — " This title is extant at Rome 
in the Basilica of S. Croce, &c. where I have often 
seen and done my devotion to it," (" veneratus 
sum.") He goes on to describe it minutely. The 
same writer inserts several personal details concern- 
ing Veronica, and notices her handkerchief in the 
same way, in his note on ver. 32. 

The Abbe Barbier de Montault, a very zealous 
Romanist, has the following remarkable statement on 
the subject of Relics, in the Annee Liturgique a 
Rome, p. 151. With reference to the "foule d'osse- 
ments de martyrs extraits des catacombes," exposed 
on a certain Friday in Lent at the Church of S. Lo- 
renzo in Lucina, he says — "La plupart des corps 
saints trouves dans les catacombes manquant de 
noms propres, out regu, lorsqu'on les a exposes a la 
veneration publique, des noms de circonsiance, qui 
rCont qiCune signification vague, com me Felix, Fortu- 
nat, Victor," &c. Is this then the avowed history 
of the skeletons in glass cases one sees in many of 
the churches ? The skeleton of S. Felix, for in- 
stance, at the Church of S. Maria de Angelis, — 
dressed, and crowned with flowers, and kneeling on 
one knee ; with a palm-branch in one hand, and a 



266 APPENDIX. 

bottle of his own blood in the other? .... The 
simplicity of such a confession silences criticism ; 
for it calmly transfers the whole question of Relics 
to a region with which criticism has no acquaintance, 
i — the world of shadows ! But it is exceedingly 
difficult, — (practically, God grant that it may ever 
be impossible !) — for a people like ourselves, who 
have been taught, above all things, to seek for the 
Truth, to understand the intellectual position of 
one who can reverence what he knows to be a non- 
entity ; and who does not hesitate to use language 
which, by common consent, has been consecrated to 
severe matters of fact, concerning matters which, 
according to his own showing, only pretend to be 
matters of fable. 



APPENDIX. 261 



D. 

(Referred to on Page 93 and Page 141.) 



MODERN ROMISH SERVICE. 

XT used to be a frequent subject of secret wonder 
-*- with the present writer, before he visited Rome, 
how in the world the spiritual life of a Roman 
Catholic population is sustained. The Breviary and 
the Missal, — their Prayer-book, in short, — being in 
Latin, (which is not, of course, generally " under- 
standed of the people,") how, do the unlearned, — 
how, in other words, do the great bulk of the popu- 
lation, — contrive to satisfy their own spiritual ne- 
cessities and yearnings ? It was no answer to these 
questions to be assured that the Breviary services, 

— Matins, and Vespers, and Compline, and the rest, 

— are not used for purposes of parochial worship in 
church. This rather increased the difficulty than 
removed it. For it suggested the additional inquiry, 

— If then, practically, the Breviary and Missal are 
not the Romish people's Prayer-book, what becomes 
of that boasted possession of theirs ? With us (God 
be praised !) our ancient Breviary and Missal, — re- 
vised, condensed, and improved in every page, — 
are to this hour the people's Prayer-book. Has 



268 APPENDIX. 

Rome, tnen, practically parted ivith her inheritance? 
. . . What she lias done with it may reasonably 
form the subject of a separate letter. Enough on 
the present occasion that 1 should recall how the 
Romish Church sustains the spiritual life of her 
children, when they present themselves in the courts 
of the Lord's House, and come together to worship. 
The Breviary services she certainly does not give them. 
Not to waste words, — if Going to Church be a 
correct popular description of the Anglican notion 
of being externally a religious person, Hearing 
3fass l describes accurately the Romanist view of 
the same character. By " going to Church," we 
mean, of course, attending either " Morning Prayer," 
or " Evening Prayer," or both : and these, as we 
know, involve alike, almost invariably a Sermon ; 
while the former implies inevitably the Communion 
Service also. But " hearing Mass " is a very differ- 
ent affair. It consists simply in seeing and hearing, 
or at least observing, the priest celebrate. A devout 
person tries to hear Mass as often as daily, and com- 
municates once a month, or oftener. Carefully per- 
formed, the service of the Mass lasts half an hour, 
- — which is felt to be but a small space of time to 

1 In the popular devotional manuals, is generally found 
the " Modo di ndire la S. Messa." So in French books of a 
similar class : " Priere avant la Messe pour se disposer a la 
bien entendre." In the Compendium of Christian Doctrine, 
it is asked, " Quanti e quali sono i Comandamenti della 
Chiese ? Sono sei : Udir la S. Messa," &c. 



APPENDIX. 269 

give weekly to public worship. Accordingly a pious 
person will attend two or three Masses in succession. 
on Sundays ; and, on occasions of communicating, 
will stay to hear one Mass more. Such are the de- 
votions of the forenoon. What need to remark on 
the contrast (not to go any further) between the 
method of the two Churches ? To say nothing of 
the language employed, our general practice is to 
have the ancient Prayers, Hymns, and Creeds of 
the Church, — a portion of the Psalms, — a Lesson 
from either Testament, — the Litany, and a Sermon, 
— together with such parts of the Communion Ser- 
vice as are read when there is no celebration. Their 
general practice is to have none of thes£ ; but the 
whole of the Communion Service, on the contrary ; 
at which the congregation are present without com- 
municating, — a thing which we, with the ancient 
Church, entirely disallow. 1 

The ordinary forenoon devotions of a Poman 
Catholic are further attended with the following dif- 
ferences of detail — viz., that a person goes to any 
church (for the parochial feeling is unknown in this 
respect) ; enters at any time between 5 a.m. and 
noon; kneels in the vicinity of some altar where 
Mass has not yet begun ; follows the Latin service 

1 The detailed proof of this assertion, (which would be 
out of place here,) has been offered by myself in a separate 
publication. I should not have thought such proof neces- 
sary, but that the statement in the text has been (with more 
vigour than learning) assailed. 



270 APPENDIX. 

as closely as the worshipper knows how ; and sel- 
dom makes responses. (These are made by the 
little boy who waits on the priest.) When a person 
intends to communicate, the usual practice is to go 
early, — at five, half-past five, or six o'clock, for ex- 
ample ; on other occasions, at ten or eleven. At 
that time Messa Cantata is commonly celebrated. 
This is the Mass most largely attended, and lasts for 
an hour. — I believe I have now fairly described the 
sum total of the ordinary public worship of a re- 
spectable Romanist on Sunday. For perhaps he 
does not go to church in the afternoon at all. 

A yet closer approximation to the Anglican 
method is" exhibited by those people who are care- 
ful, on Sundays, to listen to that celebration of Mass, 
(called, I believe, " Messa conventuale,") in the 
course of which the " paroco " delivers a discourse 
on the Gospel for the day. I believe this is invari- 
ably a " spiegazione del' Evangelio," and lasts for 
three-quarters of an hour. Half an hour would be 
thought distinctly too short a time. (A " predica," 
or sermon, lasts for a " piccola ora," and is a differ- 
ent thing.) This service occupies, in all, from an 
hour and a quarter to an hour and a half. Persons 
who are careful to attend it w r ill probably be of the 
number of those who make a point of entering a 
church in the course of the afternoon, " per vi si tare 
il Sagramento e la Virgine." x This "visita" occu- 

1 There is a little manual of Liguori's, — Visita al SS. Sa- 
cramento ed a Maria Santissima, per ciascun giorno del mese, 1857 



APPENDIX. 271 

pies a few minutes, and is employed in reciting five 
" Pater-Nosters," as many " Ave-Marias " and " Glo- 
rias," in honour of the five wounds of our Blessed 
Lord ; or three of each, in honour of the Holy 
Trinity. To these are added three Ave-Marias to 
the Blessed Virgin. 

I believe the only other ordinary service on Sun- 
day evenings in a Roman Catholic church consists 
of the Rosario della Madonna and the Benedizione. 
Saying the Rosary, (a method stated to have been 
devised by St. Dominic in the twelfth century,) 
means nothing else but repeating 150 Ave-Marias, 
15 Pater-Nosters, and as many Glorias, in honour of 
the Virgin ; and at every tenth Ave and single Pa- 
ter-Noster, meditating on one of the fifteen mysteries 
of the Rosary, five of which are " gaudiosi," five 
"dolorosi," and five "gloriozi." Thus, the first 
" mistero gaudioso" was the Annunciation ; the sec- 
ond, the visit to Elizabeth, &c. To this devotional 
exercise certain indulgences are annexed. Benedic- 
tion, (which the French call Salat,) denotes the 
display of the consecrated wafer, with the Litany of 
the Virgin, and the " Tantum ergo," (or two last 
verses of the hymn " Pange lingua gloriosa.") — 
Into that Litany, by the way, has been lately intro- 
duced the invocation, " Regina, sine labe originali 
concepta, ora pro nobis." — Such is the " evening 
service " at Rome. But there are churches, of 
course, in that city, where Vespers, (often with mu- 
sic,) may be attended : because at Rome there are so 



272 APPENDIX. 

many conventual societies, one or other of which is 
attached to every principal church. For this reason, 
by the way, Rome itself does not furnish a fair sam- 
ple of the Romish system. However, it is of Rome 
only that I here speak. 

Opportunities are further afforded to devout peo- 
ple of frequenting the church for the purpose of 
congregational worship by the often recurring an- 
nouncement of a Triduo or a Novena, as it is called, 
in honour of a certain Saint. These special ser- 
vices, extending (as their name implies) over three 
or nine days, originate occasionally with the ecclesi- 
astical bodies themselves ; on great festivals of the 
Church, for example. More often, I believe, they 
are the expression of individual piety. Any one 
desiring a favour at the hands of one of the saints, 
— S. Giuseppe, S. Luigi, S. Ignazio, or more likely 
the Madonna, — orders a Triduo or a Novena in 
their honour. But in time of national trouble, this 
is done by public authority, and seven years of 
indulgence are promised to those who are present on 
any one of the days : plenary indulgence to as many 
as, after confession and Holy Communion, shall at- 
tend devoutly, on each day. Certain prayers in the 
vernacular tongue, the Litany of the Virgin, hj^mns, 
and the Benediction, together with sundry pieces of 
vocal music, — these elements commonly make up 
the office. A sermon is also often introduced. 

Another devotional exercise which is highly popu- 
lar with the people is the Via Crucis. Our Lord 



APPENDIX. 273 

is feigned to have either halted with His Cross, or 
to have sunk beneath the burthen of it, fourteen 
times before He reached Calvary. These are called 
the "stations" of the Cross. Accordingly, to move 
from one station to another with the priest and his 
attendants, and to join in the prayers which are of- 
fered up at each, or to listen to the short exhorta- 
tion which is often delivered at the same time, — 
constitutes a distinct funzione, or office. What need 
to say that it is written in the vernacular tongue, 
and is altogether a modern invention ? Here is a 
short and not unfair specimen : — " Stazione IV. 
Gesu incontrala sua SS. Madre. O Divin Figlio 
de Maria ! O Santissima Madre del mio Gesu : ec- 
comi a' vostri santissimi piedi umiliato e compunto : 
son' io quel traditore, che fabbricai, peccando, il col- 
tello di dolore, che trappasso i vostri tenerissimi 
cuori." 

Another solemn act of worship consists in the 
adoration of the Sacrament of the Lord's Body. 
" L'Orazione dell' Quarant' Ore ad onore di Gesu 
Sacramentato," is an act of devotion performed in 
several of the churches of Rome in succession, 
throughout the year, according to a printed scheme, 
— a copy of which hangs in the sacristy of every 
church. One priest kneels before the sacrament 
until he is relieved by another ; and persons devoutly 
disposed who enter the church, join silently in the 
act of adoration. At night, members of the " Pia 
unione di Adoratori del SS. Sacramento" present 
18 



274 APPENDIX. 

themselves at the church doors, and are admitted for 
the purpose of prayer. This Office, said in round 
numbers to last for " quarant' ore," lasts really for 
forty-eight hours, beginning at noon on Wednesday, 
1st February (for instance) at the church of SS. Yin- 
cenzo ed Anastasio ; at noon on the ensuing Friday, 
at S. Maria in Vallicella ; at noon on the Sunday 
after, at the Trinita cle' Pellegrini ; at the same hour 
on Tuesday, at S. Maria del Popolo ; and so on 
throughout the year ; so that never for an instant, 
night or day, shall the sacred object be without wor- 
shippers. But observe, the Service of the " Quar- 
ant' Ore " ceases abruptly at noon on the Thursday 
in Holy-Week, and for twenty-four hours is entirely 
discontinued. It is resumed at noon on Easter-Eve. 
The sacrament is exposed for worship in many other 
churches of Rome besides those contained in the 
" giro ordinario," but without the same circumstances 
of outward solemnity. 



APPENDIX. 275 



E. 

(Referred to on Page 110.) 



HOURS OF THE MODERN ROMISH BREVIARY 
OFFICES. 

/^VNE approaches the inquiry into the modern 
^^ Romish usage in respect of the hours of its 
Breviary Offices, (if I may judge of others' feelings 
by my own,) with no little curiosity. The case of 
our own Church and nation, (as Archdeacon Free- 
man has fully demonstrated.) is just this:; — our 
forefathers, in the fulness of their wisdom, and in 
the free exercise of their own undoubted preroga- 
tive, about three hundred and eleven years since, 
consolidated those ancient Sarum Breviary Services 
which were in general use throughout England at 
the era of the Reformation; and out of "Matins," 
" Lauds," and " Prime," constructed our present 
Morning Service, (" Mattins " as it is still called in 
the Calendar ;) out of " Vespers," and " Compline," 
our Evening Service, — which the Calendar still calls 
" Evensong." It was a work, as we of the present 
generation have lately been taught (but our fathers 
knew it very well,) not of mere abridgment, much 
less of fusion or selection ; but of consolidation. 



276 APPENDIX. 

For, in consequence of a general resemblance be- 
tween the first three and the last two services just 
named, both in respect of the elements out of which 
they were constructed, and also in respect of the 
order and sequence in which those elementary parts 
anciently stood, — it was found possible to preserve 
not only essential continuity, but practical identity 
as well, between the ancient and the revised service ; 
and yet to abridge and to consolidate into one, the 
three and the two Offices respectively, which had be- 
fore been distinct. Those Bishops and Doctors of 
our Church to whom the work was intrusted accord- 
ingly " expected the people and Church of their clay 
to accept the Services as, for all practical purposes, 
the same services revised ; and what is more, as such 
the Church and people manifestly did accept them." 
We have been shown that " in the earliest age, 
and down to about the fourth century, the Church 
thought it good to have in effect two, — at the ut- 
most they may be called three, — solemn Services 
of ordinary public worship in the day ; and no more. 
At the last-mentioned epoch, she was induced under 
the influence of the monastic system, or in emula- 
tion of it, to institute public Service at other times 
— viz. the 1st, 3rd, 6th, and 9th hours, and late in 
the evening. . . . How far, in this respect, she acted 
the part of a wise householder, may surely now at 
least be questioned. The system, as a system of 
numerous daily Offices of public worship, prescribed 
for the use of the members of the Church, has been 



APPENDIX. 277 

practically for hundreds of years abandoned through- 
out Christendom." With ourselves, who reverted at 
the era of the Reformation to primitive usage, — 
with ourselves alone, at this day, survives a public 
form which retains the characteristic outlines and 
essential organization of the ancient Offices. 

But it is not a little curious, — even more as 
(what may be called) a question of Liturgical expe- 
rience, than as a matter of ecclesiastical history, — 
to bear in mind what had been the state of things 
among ourselves with regard to the daily service 
immediately before the period of the Reformation. 
It is found that there had been three public Services 
and no more, celebrated in our English Church pre- 
vious to 1549. " Matins," " Lauds," and "Prime" 
had been said by accumulation early in the morning, 
and the whole service had been called " Mattins." 
" Mass " had been said rather later. " Vespers " and 
" Compline " (also by accumulation) had been said 
in the afternoon ; and " Evensong" (the Anglo-Saxon 
equivalent for " Vespers,") had given its name to 
the Service. . . . This, in a few words, was the sum 
of the knowledge of the subject with which I went 
to Rome ; and bearing in mind how it had fared with 
ourselves as to the practical question, not a little 
curiosity did I feel to ascertain how the case stood 
at present with our elder sister in the same behalf. 
That for public congregational purposes, in every 
Communion except our own, (as already explained,) 
the Breviary Services are a thing of the past, — I 



278 APPENDIX. 

was aware : but besides desiring to know what had 
been substituted for them in the churches, I was ex- 
cessively curious to ascertain what the Conventual 
practice in respect of the Breviary actually is. The 
result of the former inquiry is briefly given in Ap- 
pendix D. The present note shall be devoted to the 
other question. 

The first thing I ascertained, and which filled me 
with no small astonishment, was, that Matins and 
Lauds are all but universally said overnight, — at 8 
p.m. for instance ; and that they are said by accumu- 
lation ; the two services together occupying an hour 
and a quarter. Prime is said at 7.15 in the morn- 
ing, and occupies a quarter of an hour. The time 
of Mass is not fixed. Tierce, Sext, and Nones, (oc- 
cupying half an hour,) are said by accumulation at 
11.30: Vespers and Compline together, (also occu- 
pying half an hour,) at 2.30. This was the method 
of certain Camaldolese at Rome, observing the rule 
of S. Benedict. 

Certain " Canonici Pegolari di S. Agostino, Roc- 
quettini " gave me their hours as follows : — Prime 
and. Tierce at 7.30, lasting till 8 a.m. : Messa Con- 
ventuale at 8: Sext and Nones from 8.30 till 9: 
Vespers and Compline from 3.50 till 4.50 p.m. 
Matins and Lauds, occupying an hour, were recited 
at 8.15 p.m. 

From a society of Franciscans, I obtained the fol- 
lowing striking table of hours : — Mass at any time 
from 5 to 8 a.m. Prime, Tierce, Sext, and Nones, 



APPENDIX. 279 

(by accumulation !) occupying half an hour, are said 
at 11.15 a.m. Vespers, Compline, Matins, and 
Lauds, (also by accumulation!) at 3 p.m. These 
take an hour. How nearly does this correspond 
with our own ante-Reformation English use, — with 
the exception of the impropriety of reciting Matins, 
(with its collect referring to " the beginning of this 
day,") overnight ! . . . Another small society of 
Franciscans told me they had the same usage : 
namely, of reciting Vespers, -Compline, Matins, and 
Lauds by accumulation at 3.30 p.m. It occupied an 
hour and a quarter. 

Very similar was the scheme of hours observed by 
another convent of Augustinians. They had Mass 
at 6 : Choral Prime, lasting twenty minutes, at 7 
a.m. Tierce, Sext, and Nones, lasting three-quar- 
ters of an hour, at 10.15. High Mass at 11. Cho- 
ral Vespers, lasting twenty minutes, at 11.45 a.m. 
(before dinner, by special license during Lent.) 
Compline, Matins, and Lauds, by accumulation, 
(lasting in all three-quarters of an hour,) at 3 p.m. 
These again are practically tivo Services, you see, — 
one at 10.15, the other at 3. But only think of 
having Vespers said in the forenoon, and Matins in 
the evening! .... At other seasons of the year, 
these same Augustinians recite Vespers, Compline, 
Matins, and Lauds, by accumulation. The four Of- 
fices occupy an hour and a quarter. As for the 
time, — when the An gel us is at 8, Vespers begin at 
3.45 p.m. 






280 APPENDIX. 

The members of a famous Jesuit establishment at 
Rome repeat Vespers and Compline (together) at 3 
p.m. : Matins and Lauds (also together) at 8 p.m. 

The chief body of Franciscans at Rome told me 
that their practice was to say Vespers at twenty 
o'clock — L e., (in winter,) 2.30 p.m. ; and Compline 
at 3. Matins at 6.30 ; and Lauds at 7 in the even- 
ing. 

But how does all this happen ? (I often inquired.) 
We, in England, are under an impression that Con- 
ventual societies and Monastic bodies keep the hours 
accurately. How is it you do not say Matins and 
Lauds in the morning ? . . . I was reminded that 
before celebrating Mass, Matins and Lauds must 
have been recited. To avoid the possibility there- 
fore of any breach of ecclesiastical rule in this re- 
spect, it is now the almost universal practice to say 
Matins and Lauds overnight. Next, it was urged 
that so many of the society were engaged in visiting 
the sick, and in other ways, that 'practically it had 
been found necessary to modify the practice with re- 
gard to the hours in that particular convent. And 
sometimes illness was alleged, — the prevalent feeble 
health of many of the society, — as a reason for 
suspending until warmer weather the due discharge 
of the earliest Offices. 

The Francescani Cappucini, (whose head- quarters 
are at the Church of the Conception,) chant Matins 
and Lauds at midnight. It lasts for an hour and a 
half. Mass is said at 6 a.m., lasting (with Tierce) 



APPENDIX. 281 

for another hour and a half. Sext and Nones, (oc- 
cupying half an hour,) are chanted at 11 a.m. The 
hour of Vespers varies. They occupy half an hour, 
and are chanted at any hour between 1 and 3 p.m. 
Compline is at 5.30. 

The Passiouists at Monte Cavi, (above Albano.) 
have Matins and Lauds, (occupying an hour,) at 1 in 
the morning : at 5.15 Prime and Tierce. Mass lasts 
from 6 till 7. At 10, come Sext and Nones, — oc- 
cupying, like Prime and Tierce, half an hour. Ves- 
pers are at 2 p.m., and occupy the same time. At 5, 
Compline, followed by an hour of meditation. The 
same is very nearly the method of the Capuchins' at 
the Convent of Albano. At the Camaldoli, a con- 
vent of Benedictine monks on an eminence near 
Naples, (for the Benedictines are almost the only 
order which claims the dignified appellation of 
monad?) Matins and Lauds are said at 1 in the 
morning. Their hour for Prime is 5, and this is 
followed by Mass. At 9 is Tierce, and Sext at 
10.30. Nones are at 11.30. Then, in the afternoon, 
Vespers at 4, and Compline, at 6.30. What with 
" lettura spirituale " for three-quarters of an hour, 
study for an hour and a half, "lavoro manuale" 
(from 7 till 9 a.m.) daily, and silence every day in 
the week except Tuesday and Thursday ; — those 
twenty-seven monks must lead a severe life. They 
seemed happy. 

In all that precedes, (which, as you will observe, 
mostly regards Rome and its environs,) I have not 



282 APPENDIX. 

adverted to one part of the conventual practice, 
which materially increases its severity, although it 
must be admitted to impair the primitive simplicity 
of its character. Besides " meditazione," to which 
half an hour is commonly assigned, and often twice 
a day, the frate repeatedly mentioned, while enume- 
rating their Offices, the Litany of the Virgin, and the 
JRosario, 

But the day has gone by when Learning flour- 
ished in the cloister, and Piety made it her favourite 
refuge. Convents are no longer the nurseries of 
the Fine Arts, or the retreats of learned men : nor 
do they prove on inspection what one's indulgent 
fancy paints, contemplating them through the grey 
mist of more than half a thousand years. The 
Convent library is little resorted to: and its con- 
tents are but very imperfectly known, even to the 
appointed u custode " of the books. The very library 
is seldom what one would expect or desire to find, 
— as, for example, that it should contain a respect- 
able collection of some of the early Fathers ; or at 
least rejoice in the most famous modern expositions 
of Holy Scripture. I doubt whether one ecclesias- 
tic in five thousand can read Greek The 

very Breviary hours, as we have seen, are generally 
found impracticable. They everywhere exhibit a 
strange tendency to result in the same fatal phe- 
nomena of accumulation, anticipation, and the rest, 
which were witnessed in this country upwards of 
three centuries since, and which led in the end to 



APPENDIX. 283 

our consolidation of them. To be brief; without 
judging others, or desiring to condemn any part of 
the machinery of foreign Churches, have we not 
good reason to thank God with all our heart that 
our lot has been cast where it is ? and that their in- 
stitutions are not ours ? 



Cambridge : Stereotyped and Printed by John Wilson and Son. 









V 



,\ x 


















> 

































* -\ 












^ A X 



' 



^ % 







Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
f "& Neutralized aoent- Mannecium nviHo 









x 00 ^. 



.**■ * 







Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: Jan. 2006 



\ PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 



1 1 1 Thomson Park Dnve 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724) 773-2 W 



r ' ^ ^ **" * 



V* £ 



s M 




\ s s**r 










%^ 







* 



•\ 



"*v 



W 



%. .c 






^'- 






